Summary of Pesticide Use Report Data - 2014

Back to 2014 Pesticide Use Reporting (PUR) Menu


CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PESTICIDE REGULATION
California Environmental Protection Agency
1001 I Street
Sacramento, California 95814-3510
Edmund G. Brown Jr., Governor
Matt Rodriquez, Secretary for California Environmental Protection Agency
Brian R. Leahy, Director of Department of Pesticide Regulation
State Seal

January 2016

Any portion of this report may be reproduced for any but profit-making purposes. For information on obtaining electronic data files, see Page ii. This report is also available on DPR’s Web site www.cdpr.ca.gov. If you have questions concerning this report, call 916-445-3887.

Contents

How To Access the Summary of Pesticide Use Report Data

I.  Introduction

II.  Comments and Clarifications of Data

III.  Data Summary

IV.  Trends in Pesticide Use in Certain Pesticide Categories

V.  Trends in Pesticide Use in Certain Commodities

VI.  Summary of Pesticide Use Report Data 2014 Indexed by Commodity, PDF (13.7 mb)

       Summary of Pesticide Use Report Data 2014 Indexed by Chemical, PDF (11.8 mb)

Appendix


How to Access the Summary of Pesticide Use Report Data

The Summary of Pesticide Use Report Data indexed by chemical or commodity reports for years 1989-2014 can be found on DPR’s Web site at www.cdpr.ca.gov. The Summary of Pesticide Use Report Data is available in two formats. One report is indexed by chemical and lists the amount of each pesticide used, the commodity on which it was used, the number of agricultural applications, and the acres/units treated. The second report is indexed by commodity and lists amount of pesticide used for each chemical, the number of agricultural applications, and the acres/units treated.

The Annual Pesticide Use Report Data (the complete database of reported pesticide applications for 1989 to 2014) are available on CD and on DPR’s FTP site at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur_archives/. The FTP site also includes data for years 1974 to 1989. The files are in text (comma-delimited) format.

Questions regarding the Summary of Pesticide Use Report Data should be directed to the Department of Pesticide Regulation, Pest Management and Licensing Branch, P.O. Box 4015, Sacramento, California 95812-4015, telephone 916-324-4271, or you may request copies of the data by contacting Larry.Wilhoit@cdpr.ca.gov.


I. Introduction

California’s pesticide use reporting program is recognized as the most comprehensive in the world. California has had pesticide use reporting in some form since at least 1950. In 1990, California became the first state to require full reporting of agricultural pesticide use to have more realistic and comprehensive pesticide data to better inform DPR’s pesticide regulatory programs. Over the years, these data have been used by many individuals and groups including government officials, scientists, growers, legislators, and public interest groups. All pesticide use data required to be reported must be sent to county agricultural commissioners (CACs), who, in turn, report the data to DPR. In the last few years, DPR has annually collected and processed more than three million records of pesticide applications. (A single application creates more than one record if multiple pesticide products are applied at the same time.)

California has a broad legal definition of “agricultural use,” so the reporting requirements include pesticide applications in production agriculture, parks, golf courses, cemeteries, rangeland, pastures, and along roadside and railroad rights-of-way. In addition, all postharvest pesticide treatments of agricultural commodities must be reported along with all pesticide treatments in poultry and fish production and some livestock applications. All applications made by licensed applicators and outdoor applications of pesticides with the potential to pollute ground water must be reported. The primary exceptions to the reporting requirements are home-and-garden use and most industrial and institutional uses.

In addition to requiring pesticide use reporting, California law (Food and Agricultural Code [FAC] section 12979) prescribes how DPR will use the reports in setting priorities for monitoring food, enforcing pesticide use, protecting the safety of farm workers, monitoring the environment for unanticipated residues, researching pest control practices, monitoring and researching public health issues, and similar activities. These activities help DPR achieve another mandated activity: to develop an orderly program for the continuous evaluation of currently registered pesticides (FAC section 12824). Information gathered during continuous evaluation is used to gauge the performance of DPR’s regulatory programs and justify additional measures, including development of new regulations or reevaluation or cancellation of pesticide registrations. Regulations (California Code of Regulations Title 3, sections 6624 et seq.) further describe pesticide use record keeping and reporting requirements.

Continuous Evaluation of Pesticides

The Pesticide Use Report (PUR) greatly increased the accuracy and efficiency of continuous evaluation of pesticides by providing details on each application, including date, location, site (e.g., crop), time, acres or units treated, and the identity and quantity of each pesticide product applied. These data allow scientists and others to identify trends in pesticide use, compare use locations with other geographical information and data, and perform quantitative assessments and evaluations of risks pesticides may pose to human health and the environment.

DPR uses the PUR throughout its pesticide regulatory programs in ways that can be broadly grouped as temporal (time), geospatial (place), and quantitative (amount), and often combines elements of each.

Temporal analyses can pinpoint specific applications or span many years. Investigations into suspected worker illnesses, spray drift, fish or wildlife losses, or other enforcement inquiries frequently begin with a review of the PUR to see what applications were made in an area at a particular time. Protection of ground and surface waters, assessments of risks to human health with accurate potential acute and chronic exposure scenarios, and allocation of monitoring and enforcement resources often begin with analyses of PUR data spanning many years to evaluate pesticide use trends.

Geospatial analyses may be local or expansive in scale. Local analyses are used to help set priorities for surface and ground water monitoring programs by determining pesticide use and runoff potential in specific watersheds or other defined areas. DPR scientists calculate pesticides’ contributions of smog-forming volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the atmosphere using reliable pesticide use data and emissions data on products. They further refine their analyses to specific air basins that are particularly vulnerable to air pollution and determine whether pesticide-related VOC emissions are below required targets or whether additional restrictions on use may be warranted to protect air quality. More expansive analyses relate areas of pesticide use to habitats of endangered species and provide a means to guide growers with use practices that better protect these species. The results of such analyses are very valuable when assessing regulatory responses or evaluating the performance of voluntary stewardship efforts.

Quantitative assessments are broadly used to model risks of pesticide use to humans and the environment. The quality and depth of the PUR often allows researchers to apply realistic assumptions when modeling pesticide exposures, for example, of residents near agricultural lands, workers in the field, handlers preparing and applying pesticides, or aquatic organisms inhabiting waterways that receive agricultural runoff. The result is well-informed and realistic assessments on which to base risk management decisions.

After the passage of the federal Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) in 1996, complete pesticide use data became even more important to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), groups representing California’s various agricultural commodities, and other stakeholders. The FQPA contained a new food safety standard against which all pesticide tolerances (amounts of pesticide residue allowed by federal law to remain on a harvested crop) must be measured. DPR provides recent use data and summaries to commodity groups, University of California (UC) specialists, U.S. EPA, and other interested parties as they reassess tolerances and calculate dietary risks from pesticides.

Data on types and rates of pesticide use in various crops and at other sites help researchers understand how various pest management options are implemented and devise strategies that reduce environmental risks. Analyses of these data support and assess grant projects DPR funds to promote the development and adoption of integrated pest management practices in both agricultural and urban settings.

The PUR data are used by many state, regional, and local agencies; scientists; and public interest groups to better understand pesticide use and to find better ways to protect human health and the environment while producing food and fiber and maintaining our shelters and surroundings.

Data Collection

Partial reporting of agricultural pesticide use has been in place in California since at least the 1950s. In those years, CACs required agricultural pest control operators to submit monthly reports. County requirements varied, but many reports included a statement for each application that showed the grower’s name; treatment location and date; crop; acres or other units treated; target pest; and the kind, strength, and amount of the pesticide applied. Only statistics on aerial pesticide applications were forwarded to the state for tabulation. In 1955, state regulators asked for reports on ground application acreage but dropped requirements for detailed reporting of pesticides used and commodities treated. In 1970, DPR required farmers to report all applications of restricted use pesticides and pest control operators to report all pesticides used, whether restricted or nonrestricted. Both kinds of reports had to include the date, location, site (e.g., crop), acres or units treated, and the identity and quantity of each pesticide applied. Production agricultural applications included records for each application and the location to a square mile area (section, township, and range); all other applications were reported as a monthly summary by county. The reports were filed with the CAC, who forwarded the data to the state, where it was entered into a database and summarized in annual publications.

The Food Safety Act of 1989 (Chapter 12001, Assembly Bill 2161) gave DPR statutory authority to require full reporting of pesticide use. That year, the department adopted regulations and full use reporting began in 1990.

The first years of full use reporting nearly overwhelmed the department’s capacity to process data. Use reports were on paper, and staff had to hand-enter data representing more than a million records each year. DPR began almost immediately to search for ways to automate reporting from pesticide users to CACs and, in turn, from the counties to DPR. However, it was difficult to find an approach that suited the diversity of use reporting and differing budget resources among the counties. Starting in 1991, various automated programs were developed and modified by DPR and the CACs. Meanwhile, technological progress and increasing use of the Internet by businesses fed expectations for more Web-based functionality for pesticide use reporting.

CalAgPermits

In 2011, the counties worked together to implement a new standardized county system, called CalAgPermits, that operates over the Internet. It helps CACs issue restricted materials permits and provides an automated platform for electronically validating pesticide use reports and transmitting them to DPR. It accepts pesticide use reports electronically from individuals and subscriber-based firms and allows pesticide use reporting directly via the Web. CalAgPermits allows pesticide use data to flow back and forth electronically between DPR and CACs for quality assurance. It also offers more robust data quality assurances that prevent coding mistakes and transcription errors (e.g., drop down menus and requisite data fields that must be filled before records are accepted). CalAgPermits has enhanced the efficiency of data entry and data transfer and the accuracy and integrity of the database.

Improving Accuracy

The use report data are checked for accuracy at several steps in the process. Beginning at data entry, CalAgPermits checks for several kinds of errors. For example, if the pesticide that was used is a restricted material, CalAgPermits compares the pesticide’s reported use to the grower’s restricted materials permit to ensure that the pesticide is listed on the permit. Later, when data are sent to DPR to be loaded into DPR’s database, more than 50 different validity checks are made against the data. In particular, the U.S. EPA or California registration number is verified, and a check is made to confirm the commodity reported is an acceptable use of the pesticide product. The database contains some products that are no longer registered since continued use is often allowed while existing stocks remain with end-users. Records with suspected errors are flagged and returned electronically to the county for resolution.

After data are transmitted to DPR, additional data checks are performed. A statistical method, developed by DPR in the late 1990s, detects probable errors in the data fields that contain values for acres treated and the pounds of pesticide used. If a reported rate of use (amount of pesticide per area treated) is so large it is probably an error, the rate is replaced with an estimated rate equal to the median rate of all other applications of the pesticide product on the same crop or site. This is still flagged as an error and sent back to the counties for checking. Since the error could have been in the amount reported or the area or unit treated, the value that is most unusual is replaced with an estimate. Although less than one percent of the reports are flagged as this type of error, some are so large that if included they would significantly affect total amount applied of the pesticide. (For example, in 2007 an application of the insecticide imidacloprid was inaccurately reported as 108,000 pounds on one acre of cabbage. The median rate of imidacloprid use in 2007 was 0.05 pounds an acre. These types of errors, while rare, can occur.)

Improving Access to the Data

Annual reports present only a summary of the use reporting database (typically a 450-megabyte file for each year’s data). In the late 1990s, DPR took steps to improve public access to the data and present it in a more meaningful context. Summaries of the statewide data indexed by chemical and by commodity, previously available only on paper and compact disk, were posted on DPR’s Web site. Summaries of use in each of the state’s 58 counties, previously available only on request, were also posted online. The entire database starting with the 1974 data is also available on DPR’s Web site.

In 2003, DPR launched the Web-based California Pesticide Information Portal (CalPIP) database to increase public access to the nation’s most extensive source of pesticide use information. CalPIP provides pesticide use information including date, site or crop treated, pounds used, acres treated, pesticide product name, chemical name (active ingredient), application pattern (ground, air, or other), county, ZIP code, and location where the application was made to within a one-square-mile area.

DPR also began examining trends in pesticide use (starting with 1996 data) analyzing critical crops, pest problems and trends in pounds used, number of applications, and acres treated. Each year, the pesticide use report summary charts use of pesticides over several years in specific categories:

  • Reproductive toxins.
  • Carcinogens.
  • Insecticide organophosphate and carbamate chemicals.
  • Chemicals classified by DPR as ground water contaminants.
  • Chemicals listed by DPR as toxic air contaminants.
  • Fumigants.
  • Oil pesticides derived from petroleum distillation. (Some may be on the state’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals “known to cause cancer,” but most serve as alternatives to high-toxicity pesticides).
  • Biopesticides (including microorganisms, naturally occurring compounds, or compounds essentially identical to naturally occurring compounds that are not toxic to the target pest, such as pheromones).

DPR scientists review changes in pesticide use for about a dozen crops selected based on the amount of pesticide used or acreage treated. To compile this information, staff reviews publications and conducts telephone interviews with pest control advisers, growers, researchers, commodity association representatives, and UC Cooperative Extension farm advisers and specialists. Based on their knowledge of pesticides, California agriculture, pests, and pest management practices, DPR scientists propose explanations for year-to-year changes in pesticide use.

Pesticide use trend analyses can help agencies understand where efforts to promote reduced-risk pest management strategies are succeeding or failing. Information on long-term trends als

II. Comments and Clarifications of Data

The following comments and points should be taken into consideration when analyzing data contained in this report.

Terminology

  • Number of agricultural applications -Number of applications of pesticide products made to production agriculture. More detailed information is given below under “Number of Applications.”
  • Pounds applied -Number of pounds of an active ingredient.
  • Unit type -The amount listed in this column is one of the following:
    • A = Acreage
    • C = Cubic feet (of commodity treated)
    • K = Thousand cubic feet (of commodity treated)
    • P = Pounds (of commodity treated)
    • S = Square feet
    • T = Tons (of commodity treated)
    • U = Miscellaneous units (e.g., number of tractors, trees, tree holes, bins, etc.)
  • Acres treated -Cumulative number of acres treated. More detailed information is given below under “Acres Treated.”

Agricultural and Non-Agricultural Pesticide Use

Many pesticide licensing, sales, and use requirements are tied to California’s definition of agricultural use, and pesticide labels differentiate between agricultural, industrial, or institutional uses. California law (FAC section 11408) identifies agricultural use as all use except that specifically identified as nonagricultural use, which is specified as:

  • Home -Use in or in the immediate environment of a household.
  • Industrial -Use in or on property necessary to operate factories, processing plants, packinghouses, or similar buildings or use for or in a manufacturing, mining, or chemical processing. In California, industrial use does not include use on rights-of-way. Postharvest commodity fumigations at buildings or on trucks, vans, or railcars are normally industrial use.
  • Institutional -Use in or on property necessary to operate buildings such as hospitals, office buildings, libraries, auditoriums, or schools. When a licensed structural pest control operator treats these buildings, it is structural use. Use on landscaping and around walkways, parking lots, and other areas bordering such buildings is institutional use, but use on landscaping not affiliated with such buildings is not.
  • Structural -Use by licensed structural pest control operators within the scope of their licenses.
  • Vector control -Use by certain vector control (e.g., mosquito abatement) districts.
  • Veterinarian -Use according to a written prescription of a licensed veterinarian.

Agricultural use of pesticides includes:

  • Production agricultural use -Any use to produce a plant or animal agricultural product (food, feed, fiber, ornamental, or forest) that will be distributed in the channels of trade. (While production agricultural use includes various agricultural products, some requirements—most notably those that address worker safety and use reporting—apply only to plant product production.)
  • Nonproduction agricultural use -Any use to areas such as watersheds, rights-of-way, and landscaped areas (e.g., golf courses, parks, recreation areas, and cemeteries) not covered by the definitions of home and institutional uses. There are some pesticide products labeled for dual-use, that is, they have both agricultural and nonagricultural uses.

The reporting requirements apply to a range of uses partly due to the California legal definition of agricultural use. With implementation of full use reporting in 1990, the following pesticide uses are required to be reported to the CAC who, in turn, reports the data to DPR:

  • Production of any agricultural commodity except livestock.
  • Treatment of postharvest agricultural commodities.
  • Landscape maintenance in parks, golf courses, cemeteries, and similar sites defined in the FAC as agricultural use.
  • Roadside and railroad rights-of-way.
  • Poultry and fish production.
  • Application of a restricted material.
  • Application of a pesticide listed in regulation as having the potential to pollute ground water when used outdoors in industrial and institutional settings.
  • Application by licensed pest control operators, which include agricultural and structural applicators and maintenance gardeners

The primary exceptions to the use reporting requirements are consumer home-and-garden use and most industrial and institutional uses.

Operator and site identification numbers. An operator identification number, sometimes called a “grower ID,” is issued by CACs to property operators. The number is needed to report pesticide use and to buy agricultural-or restricted-use pesticides. Pest control professionals do not have to get operator ID numbers. A site identification code must be assigned for each location or field where pesticides will be used for production of an agricultural commodity. This alphanumeric code is also recorded on any restricted material permit the grower gets for the location.

What must be reported. The PUR contains two kinds of records: production agricultural records and all others. For the PUR, production agricultural records represent applications made while producing agricultural commodities. Growers must submit their production agricultural pesticide use reports to the CAC monthly, and pest control businesses must submit theirs seven days after the application. Production agricultural pesticide use reports include:

  • Date and time of application.
  • Geographic location including the section, township, range, and base line/meridian.
  • Operator identification number.
  • Operator name and address (although this information is not submitted to DPR).
  • Site identification number.
  • Commodity, crop, or site treated.
  • Acres or units planted and treated.
  • Whether the application was by air, ground, or other means.
  • For field fumigations in ozone nonattainment areas, details on fumigation method (for example, shallow shank injection with a tarp). This is to allow DPR to estimate pesticide VOC emissions. (VOCs contribute to the formation of atmospheric ozone, an important air pollutant.)
  • Amount of product applied with its name and U.S. EPA registration number or, if the product was an adjuvant, its California registration number. (The U.S. EPA does not require registration of adjuvants.)

Reports of all other kinds of pesticide use, which are mostly nonagricultural, are monthly summaries that include pesticide product name, the product registration number, amount used, number of applications, the kind of site treated (e.g., roadside, structure), the month of application, and county.

Commodity Codes

DPR’s pesticide product label database is used to cross-check pesticide use report entries to determine if the reported product is registered for use on the reported commodity. The DPR product label database uses a crop coding system based on crop names used by U.S. EPA to prepare official label information. However, this system caused some problems until DPR modified it in the early 1990s to account for situations when U.S. EPA would group specific crops under generic crop names. When, for example, a grower reported use of a product on almond, but the product was labeled for use on “nuts” but not “almond,” the pesticide product label database and the pesticide use report were not aligned and an error occurred. A cross-reference table was created associating each specific crop name with a general crop name that might appear on a product label. This cross-reference table also associates the crop name used in the PUR with all the different names for a crop in the label database. For example, the PUR uses one name for “cotton,” but the label database has several names for cotton, such as “cotton (fiber crop),” “cotton (forage -fodder),” “cotton (all or unspec),” and “cotton, general.” This system greatly reduces the number of rejected reports.

Reporting pesticide use on plants and commodities grown in greenhouse and nursery operations is a challenge because the sites are very diverse. Six commodity groupings reflect terminology that is generally known and accepted: greenhouse-grown cut flowers or greens, outdoor-grown cut flowers or greens, greenhouse-grown plants in containers, outdoor-grown plants in container/field-grown plants, greenhouse-grown transplants/propagative material, and outdoor-grown transplants/propagative material.

Tomatoes and grapes were also separated into two categories because of public and processor interest in differentiating pesticide use. Tomatoes were assigned two codes to differentiate between fresh market and processing categories. One code was assigned to table grapes, which includes grapes grown for fresh market, raisins, canning, or juicing. A second code was assigned to wine grapes.

Unregistered Use

The report contains entries that reflect the use of a pesticide on a commodity for which the pesticide is not currently registered. This sometimes occurs because the original use report submitted to the county was in error: that is, either the pesticide or the commodity was inaccurately reported. DPR’s computer program validated that the commodity is listed on the label, but nonetheless such errors appear in the PUR, possibly because of errors in the pesticide product label database. Also, the validation program does not check whether the pesticide product was registered at the time of application. For example, parathion (ethyl parathion) use was reported on crops after most uses were suspended in 1992. (These records are researched and corrected as time and resources allow.) DPR continues to implement methods that identify and reduce these types of reporting errors in future reports. Other instances may occur because, by law, growers are sometimes allowed to use stock they have on hand of a pesticide product that has been withdrawn from the market by the manufacturer or suspended or canceled by regulatory authorities. Other reporting “errors” may occur when a pesticide is applied directly to a site to control a particular pest, but is not applied directly to the crop in the field. A grower may use an herbicide to treat weeds on the edge of a field, a fumigant on bare soil prior to planting, or a rodenticide in rodent burrows. For example, reporting the use of the herbicide glyphosate on tomatoes when it was actually applied to emerging weeds prior to planting the tomatoes could be perceived to be an error. Although technically incorrect, recording the data as if the application were made directly to the commodity provides valuable crop usage information for DPR’s regulatory program. In 2015, an option was added in CalAgPermits that allows the user to designate any application as “pre-plant,” and the program allows the user to enter the crop planted without generating any error messages.

Adjuvants

Data on spray adjuvants (e.g., emulsifiers, wetting agents, foam suppressants, and other efficacy enhancers), not reported prior to full use reporting, are now included. Examples of these types of chemicals include the “alkyls” and some petroleum distillates. (Adjuvants are exempt from federal registration requirements but must be registered as pesticides in California.)

Cumulative Acres Treated

One of the measures of pesticide use in this report is cumulative area treated, where area is expressed as acres. The cumulative area treated is the sum total of the area treated with an active ingredient and integrates situations where the same field may be treated with the same active ingredient more than once in a year. For example, if a 20-acre field is treated three times in a calendar year with an active ingredient, the active ingredient would have been applied to 60 acres. Thus the total cumulative area treated for a crop could be greater than the planted area of the crop.

A similar situation occurs when the product used contains more than one active ingredient. (In any pesticide product, the active ingredient is the component that kills, or otherwise controls, target pests. A pesticide product is made up of one or more active ingredients and possibly one or more inert ingredients.) For example, if a 20-acre field is treated with a product that contains three different pesticide active ingredients, a use report is filed by the farmer correctly recording the application of a single pesticide product to 20 acres. However, the summary tables will reflect that three different active ingredients were applied—20 acres each. Adding these values results in a total of 60 acres as being treated instead of the 20 acres actually treated.

Number of Applications

The number of applications include only production agricultural applications. Applicators are required to submit one of two basic types of use reports, a production agricultural report or a monthly summary report. The production agricultural report must include information for each application. The monthly summary report, for all uses other than production agriculture, includes only monthly totals for all applications of pesticide product, site or commodity, and applicator. The total number of applications in the monthly summary reports is not consistently reported, so they are no longer included in the annual totals. (In the annual PUR reports before 1997, each monthly summary record was counted as one application.) In the annual summary report arranged by commodity, the total number of applications given for each commodity may not equal the sum of all applications of each active ingredient on that commodity. As explained above, some pesticide products contain more than one active ingredient, and one application of the product would be tallied as one application of each active ingredient. If the number of applications were summed for each active ingredient in such a product, the total number of applications would be more than one, even though only one application of the product was made.

III. Data Summary

This report is a summary of 2014 data submitted to DPR as of September 21, 2015. PUR data is continually being updated and corrected so the numbers in this report may differ from the final numbers, but any differences should be minor.

Pesticide Use In California

In 2014, 189 million pounds of pesticide active ingredients were reported as used in California. Annual use has varied from year to year since full use reporting was implemented in 1990. For example, reported pesticide use was 196 million pounds in 2005, 158 million pounds in 2009, and 195 million pounds in 2013.

Such variances are and will continue to be a normal occurrence. These fluctuations can be attributed to a variety of factors, including changes in planted acreage, crop plantings, pest pressures, and weather conditions. For example, extremely heavy rains result in excessive weeds, thus more pesticide may be used; drought conditions may result in fewer planted acres, thus less pesticide may be used.

In addition, it should be noted that the pounds of pesticides used and the number of applications are not necessarily accurate indicators of the extent of pesticide use or, conversely, the extent of use of reduced-risk pest management methods. For example, farmers may make a number of small-scale “spot” applications targeted at problem areas rather than one treatment of a large area. They may replace a more toxic pesticide used at one pound per acre with a less hazardous compound that must be applied at several pounds per acre. Either of these scenarios could increase the number of applications or amount used, respectively, without indicating an increased reliance on pesticides.

As in previous years, in 2014, the greatest pesticide use occurred in California’s San Joaquin Valley (Table 1). The four counties in this region with the highest use were Fresno, Kern, Tulare, and San Joaquin.

Table 2 breaks down the pounds of pesticide use by general use categories: production agriculture, post-harvest commodity fumigation, structural pest control, landscape maintenance, and all others.

Table 1, PDF: Total pounds of pesticide active ingredients reported in each county and rank during 2013 and 2014

Table 2, PDF: Pounds of pesticide active ingredients, 1998 – 2014, by general use categories.

Pesticide Sales In California

Reported pesticide applications are only a portion of the pesticides sold each year. Typically, about two-thirds of the pesticide active ingredients sold in a given year are not subject to use reporting. Examples of non-reported active ingredients are chlorine (used primarily for municipal water treatment) and home-use pesticide products.

There were 635 million pounds of pesticide active ingredients sold in 2013, 603 million pounds sold in 2012, 619 million pounds sold in 2011, 629 million pounds sold in 2010, 594 million pounds sold in 2009, 713 million pounds sold in 2008, and 678 million pounds sold in 2007. Prior-years data are posted on DPR’s Web site at www.cdpr.ca.gov, click “A -Z Index,” “Sales of pesticides.”

IV. Trends in Pesticide Use in Certain Pesticide Categories

This report discusses two different measures of pesticide use: amount of active ingredient (AI) applied in pounds and cumulative area treated in acres (for an explanation of cumulative area treated see page 10). Because different AIs are often used at very different rates, the picture of pesticide use may look quite different using the two measures, amount applied and area treated. Most pesticides are applied at rates of around 1 to 2 pounds per acre. However, some AIs are applied at rates of ounces per acre, while other AIs are applied at rates of hundreds of pounds per acre. This difference can be seen by looking at the use of different non-adjuvant pesticide types (Figures 1 and 2). By amount applied, the most-used pesticide types were fungicide/insecticides (including sulfur, which is applied at very high rates), fumigants, and insecticides. By cumulative area treated the most-used types were insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides. When comparing use among different AIs, area treated is often the more useful measure; pounds will emphasize pesticides used at high rates, such as fumigants. However, the trends in use for any AI will be very similar regardless of the measure of use.

Figure 1, JPG: Pounds of all AIs in the major types of pesticides from 1995 to 2014.

Reported pesticide use in California in 2014 totaled 189 million pounds, a decrease of 5.8 million pounds (3.0 percent) from 2013. Production agriculture, the major category of use subject to reporting requirements, accounted for most of the decrease. Applications decreased by 5.2 million pounds for production agriculture and 225,000 pounds for post-harvest treatments. In contrast, there was a 231,000-pound increase for structural pest control and a 160,000-pound increase for landscape maintenance. Additionally, there was a 700,000-pound decrease for other reported non-agricultural uses, which includes rights-of-way, vector control, research, and fumigation of nonfood and nonfeed materials such as lumber and furniture.

Figure 2, JPG: Acres treated by all AIs in the major types of pesticides from 1995 to 2014.

The AIs with the largest use amounts were sulfur, petroleum and mineral oils, 1,3-dichloropropene, glyphosate, and chloropicrin. The amount of sulfur accounted for 26 percent of all reported pesticide use in 2014.

Reported pesticide use by cumulative area treated in 2014 was 91 million acres, an increase of 878,000 acres (1.0 percent) from 2013. By this measure the non-adjuvant pesticides with the greatest use in 2014 were sulfur, glyphosate, petroleum and mineral oils, abamectin, and lambda-cyhalothrin (Figures 3, 4, and A-1). The most-used fumigant by area treated was aluminum phosphide.

To provide an overview, pesticide use is summarized for eight different pesticide categories from 2006 to 2014 (Tables 3 – 18) and from 1995 to 2014 (Figures 5 – 12). These categories classify pesticides according to certain characteristics such as reproductive toxins, carcinogens, or reduced-risk characteristics. Use of pesticides in these different categories varied from 2013 to 2014. Use of pesticides identified as reproductive toxins, carcinogens, cholinesterase-inhibiting pesticides, ground water contaminants, and oils decreased; use of biopesticides increased. The amount of fumigants and air contaminants decreased, but their area treated increased. Some of the major changes from 2013 to 2014 include:

  • Use of chemicals classified as reproductive toxins decreased in amount applied from 2013 to 2014 (1.3 million-pound decrease, 13 percent) and area treated (56,000-acres treated decrease, 1.5 percent). The decreased amount was mainly due to less use of the fumigants metam-sodium and methyl bromide. 2014 was the fourth year reporting a decrease in the pounds applied in this category. The decrease in area was mostly from decreased use of the miticide/insecticide abamectin (also called avermectin). Pesticides in this category are listed on the State’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals “known to cause reproductive toxicity.”
  • Figure 3, JPG: Acres treated by the top 5 AIs in each of the major types of pesticides from 2008 to 2014.
  • Use of chemicals classified as carcinogens decreased from 2013 to 2014 (2.1 million-pound decrease, 6.5 percent; 63,000-acre decrease, 2.1 percent). 2014 was the second year reporting a decrease in the pounds applied in this category. The decrease in amount was mainly due to less use of the fumigants metam-potassium (potassium n-methyldithiocarbamate) and metam-sodium and the decrease in area treated was mainly due to less use of the herbicide diuron and the fungicide iprodione. However, the decrease in use of metam-potassium and metam-sodium was accompanied by an increase in use of the fumigant 1,3-dichloropropene. The pesticides in this category are listed by U.S. EPA as A or B carcinogens or on the State’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals “known to cause cancer.”
  • Figure 4, JPG: Acres treated by the top 5 AIs in each of the major types of pesticides from 2008 to 2014.
  • Use of cholinesterase-inhibiting pesticides (organophosphate [OP] and carbamate pesticides), which include compounds of high regulatory concern, decreased from the previous year (10,000-pound decrease, 0.22 percent; 188,000-acre decrease, 4.5 percent). Most of the decrease in both amount and area treated was with the insecticide chlorpyrifos. Other AIs with large decreases were the insecticide acephate and the defoliant ethephon, which is not a classical organophosphate and has only mild cholinergic potential. Use of some AIs, such as dimethoate and thiobencarb, increased.
  • Use of chemicals categorized as ground water contaminants decreased in both amount and area treated (156,000-pound decrease, 18 percent; 140,000-acre decrease, 20 percent). The decreases were mostly from less use of the herbicides diuron, simazine, bromacil, norflurazon, and atrazine.
  • The amount of chemicals categorized as toxic air contaminants decreased (2.7 million-pound decrease, 5.7 percent) but the area treated increased (77,000-acre increase, 3.2 percent). By pounds, most toxic air contaminants are fumigants which are used at high rates and whose overall amount used decreased. The increase in area treated was mainly due to increased uses of the fungicide mancozeb and the herbicide trifluralin.
  • The amount of fumigant chemicals applied decreased (2.3 million-pound decrease, 5.4 percent), but the area treated increased (3,400-acre increase, 1.0 percent). The largest decreases in amount were in metam-sodium, metam-potassium, and methyl bromide, and most of the increase in area treated was due to zinc phosphide. Fumigants with increased amounts include chloropicrin and 1,3-dicloropropene, but the area treated with each decreased.
  • Use of oil pesticides decreased in both amount and area treated (5.7 million-pound decrease, 16 percent; 60,000-acre decrease, 1.4 percent). Oils include many different chemicals, but the category used here includes only those derived from petroleum distillation. Some of these oils may be on the State’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals “known to cause cancer,” but most serve as alternatives to highly toxic pesticides. Oils are also used by organic growers.
  • Use of biopesticides increased in both amount and area treated (1.0 million-pound increase, 23 percent; 325,000-acre treated increase, 5.1 percent). Use of most biopesticide AIs increased. The most-used biopesticide AI by amount used was kaolin, and it also accounted for most of the increased use in this category. Citric acid, propylene glycol, and ammonium nitrate were the most-used biopesticides by area treated, and the first two AIs accounted for most of the increase in area treated. Kaolin is used both as a fungicide and an insecticide, and citric acid, propylene glycol, and ammonium nitrate are used as adjuvants. In general, biopesticides are derived from or synthetically mimic natural materials such as animals, plants, bacteria, and minerals and fall into three major classes: microbial, plant-incorporated protectant, or naturally occurring substances that control pests by non-toxic mechanisms.

Since 1990, the reported pounds of pesticides applied have fluctuated from year to year. An increase or decrease in use from one year to the next or in the span of a few years does not necessarily indicate a general trend in use; it simply may reflect variations related to various factors (e.g., climate or economic changes). Short periods of time (three to five years) may suggest trends, such as the increased pesticide use from 2001 to 2005 or the decreased use from 2005 to 2009. However, regression analyses on use from 1996 to 2014 do not indicate a significant trend of either increase or decrease in total pesticide use.

The summaries detailed in the following use categories are not intended to serve as indicators of pesticide risks to the public or the environment. Rather, the data supports DPR regulatory functions to enhance public safety and environmental protection. (See “Continuous Evaluation of Pesticides” on page 1.)

USE TRENDS OF PESTICIDES ON THE STATE'S PROPOSITION 65 LIST OF CHEMICALS THAT ARE "KNOWN TO CAUSE REPRODUCTIVE TOXICITY"

Table 3, PDF: The reported pounds of pesticides used that are on the State’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals that are “known to cause reproductive toxicity.” Use includes both agricultural and reportable non-agricultural applications. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation’s Pesticide Use Reports.

Table 4, PDF: The reported cumulative acres treated with pesticides that are on the State’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals that are “known to cause reproductive toxicity.” Use includes primarily agricultural applications. The grand total for acres treated may be less than the sum of acres treated for all active ingredients because some products contain more than one active ingredient. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation’s Pesticide Use Reports.

Figure 5, JPG: Use trends of pesticides that are on the State’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals that are “known to cause reproductive toxicity.” Reported pounds of active ingredient (AI) applied include both agricultural and non-agricultural applications. The reported cumulative acres treated include primarily agricultural applications. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation’s Pesticide Use Reports.


USE TRENDS OF PESTICIDES LISTED BY U.S. EPA AS B2 CARCINOGENS OR ON THE STATE'S PROPOSITION 65 LIST OF CHEMICALS THAT ARE "KNOWN TO CAUSE CANCER"

Table 5, PDF: The reported pounds of pesticides used that are listed by U.S. EPA as A or B carcinogens or on the State’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals that are “known to cause cancer.” Use includes both agricultural and reportable non-agricultural applications. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation’s Pesticide Use Reports.

Table 6, PDF: The reported cumulative acres treated with pesticides that are listed by U.S. EPA as A or B carcinogens or on the State’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals that are “known to cause cancer.” Use includes primarily agricultural applications. The grand total for acres treated may be less than the sum of acres treated for all active ingredients because some products contain more than one active ingredient. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation’s Pesticide Use Reports.

Figure 6, JPG: Use trends of pesticides that are listed by U.S. EPA as A or B carcinogens or on the State’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals that are “known to cause cancer.” Reported pounds of active ingredient (AI) applied include both agricultural and non-agricultural applications. The reported cumulative acres treated include primarily agricultural applications. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation’s Pesticide Use Reports.


USE TRENDS OF CHOLINESTERASE-INHIBITING PESTICIDES

Table 7, PDF: The reported pounds of pesticides used that are cholinesterase-inhibiting pesticides. These pesticides are organophosphate and carbamate active ingredients. Use includes both agricultural and reportable non-agricultural applications. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation’s Pesticide Use Reports.

Table 8, PDF: The reported cumulative acres treated with pesticides that are cholinesterase-inhibiting pesticides. These pesticides are organophosphate and carbamate active ingredients. Use includes primarily agricultural applications. The grand total for acres treated may be less than the sum of acres treated for all active ingredients because some products contain more than one active ingredient. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation’s Pesticide Use Reports.

Figure 7, JPG: Use trends of pesticides that are cholinesterase-inhibiting pesticides. These pesticides are organophosphate and carbamate active ingredients. Reported pounds of active ingredient (AI) applied include both agricultural and non-agricultural applications. The reported cumulative acres treated include primarily agricultural applications. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation’s Pesticide Use Reports.


USE TRENDS OF PESTICIDES ON THE "A" PART OF DPR'S GROUNDWATER PROTECTION LIST

Table 9, PDF: The reported pounds of pesticides used that are on the “a” part of DPR’s groundwater protection list. These pesticides are the active ingredients listed in the California Code of Regulations, Title 3, Division 6, Chapter 4, Subchapter 1, Article 1, Section 6800(a). Use includes both agricultural and reportable non-agricultural applications. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation’s Pesticide Use Reports.

Table 10, PDF: The reported cumulative acres treated with pesticides that are on the “a” part of DPR’s groundwater protection list. These pesticides are the active ingredients listed in the California Code of Regulations, Title 3, Division 6, Chapter 4, Subchapter 1, Article 1,Section 6800(a). Use includes primarily agricultural applications. The grand total for acres treated may be less than the sum of acres treated for all active ingredients because some products contain more than one active ingredient. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation’s Pesticide Use Reports.

Figure 8, JPG: Use trends of pesticides that are on the “a” part of DPR’s groundwater protection list. These pesticides are the active ingredients listed in the California Code of Regulations, Title 3, Division 6, Chapter 4, Subchapter 1, Article 1, Section 6800(a).Reported pounds of active ingredient (AI) applied include both agricultural and non-agricultural applications. The reported cumulative acres treated include primarily agricultural applications. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation’s Pesticide Use Reports.


USE TRENDS OF PESTICIDES ON DPR'S TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS LIST

Table 11, PDF: The reported pounds of pesticides used that are on DPR’s toxic air contaminants list applied in California. These pesticides are the active ingredients listed in the California Code of Regulations, Title 3, Division 6, Chapter 4, Subchapter 1, Article 1, Section6860. Use includes both agricultural and reportable non-agricultural applications. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation’s Pesticide Use Reports.

Table 12, PDF: The reported cumulative acres treated with pesticides that are on DPR’s toxic air contaminants list applied in California. These pesticides are the active ingredients listed in the California Code of Regulations, Title 3, Division 6, Chapter 4, Subchapter 1,Article 1, Section 6860. Use includes primarily agricultural applications. The grand total for acres treated may be less than the sum of acres treated for all active ingredients because some products contain more than one active ingredient. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation’s Pesticide Use Reports.

Figure 9, JPG: Use trends of pesticides that are on DPR’s toxic air contaminants list applied in California. These pesticides are the active ingredients listed in the California Code of Regulations, Title 3, Division 6, Chapter 4, Subchapter 1, Article 1, Section 6860. Reported pounds of active ingredient (AI) applied include both agricultural and non-agricultural applications. The reported cumulative acres treated include primarily agricultural applications. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation’s Pesticide Use Reports.


USE TRENDS OF PESTICIDES THAT ARE FUMIGANTS

Table 13, PDF: The reported pounds of pesticides used that are fumigants. Use includes both agricultural and reportable non-agricultural applications. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation’s Pesticide Use Reports.

Table 14, PDF: The reported cumulative acres treated with pesticides that are fumigants. Use includes primarily agricultural applications. The grand total for acres treated may be less than the sum of acres treated for all active ingredients because some products contain more than one active ingredient. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation’s Pesticide Use Reports.

Figure 10, JPG: Use trends of pesticides that are fumigants. Reported pounds of active ingredient (AI) applied include both agricultural and non-agricultural applications. The reported cumulative acres treated include primarily agricultural applications. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation’s Pesticide Use Reports.


USE TRENDS OF OIL PESTICIDES.

Table 15, PDF: The reported pounds of pesticides used that are oils. As a broad group, oil pesticides and other petroleum distillates are on U.S. EPA’s list of A or B carcinogens or the State’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals “known to cause cancer.” However, these classifications do not distinguish among oil pesticides that may not qualify as carcinogenic due to their degree of refinement. Many such oil pesticides also serve as alternatives to high-toxicity chemicals. For this reason, oil pesticide data was classified separately in this report. Use includes both agricultural and reportable non-agricultural applications. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation’s Pesticide Use Reports.

Table 16, PDF: The reported cumulative acres treated with pesticides that are oils. As a broad group, oil pesticides and other petroleum distillates are on U.S. EPA’s list of A or B carcinogens or the State’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals “known to cause cancer.”However, these classifications do not distinguish among oil pesticides that may not qualify as carcinogenic due to their degree of refinement. Many such oil pesticides also serve as alternatives to high-toxicity chemicals. For this reason, oil pesticide data was classified separately in this report. Use includes primarily agricultural applications. The grand total for acres treated may be less than the sum of acres treated for all active ingredients because some products contain more than one active ingredient. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation’s Pesticide Use Reports.

Figure 11, JPG: Use trends of pesticides that are oils. As a broad group, oil pesticides and other petroleum distillates are on U.S. EPA’s list of A or B carcinogens or the State’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals “known to cause cancer.” However, these classifications do not distinguish among oil pesticides that may not qualify as carcinogenic due to their degree of refinement. Many such oil pesticides also serve as alternatives to high-toxicity chemicals. For this reason, oil pesticide data was classified separately in this report. Reported pounds of active ingredient (AI) applied include both agricultural and non-agricultural applications. The reported cumulative acres treated include primarily agricultural applications. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation’s Pesticide Use Reports.


USE TRENDS OF BIOPESTICIDE

Table 17, PDF: The reported pounds of pesticides used that are biopesticides. Biopesticides include microorganisms and naturally occurring compounds, or compounds essentially identical to naturally occurring compounds that are not toxic to the target pest (such as pheromones). Use includes both agricultural and reportable non-agricultural applications. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation’s Pesticide Use Reports.

Table 18, PDF: The reported cumulative acres treated with pesticides that are biopesticides. Biopesticides include microorganisms and naturally occurring compounds, or compounds essentially identical to naturally occurring compounds that are not toxic to the target pest (such as pheromones). Use includes primarily agricultural applications. The grand total for acres treated may be less than the sum of acres treated for all active ingredients because some products contain more than one active ingredient. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation’s Pesticide Use Reports.

Figure 12, JPG: Use trends of pesticides that are biopesticides. Biopesticides include microorganisms and naturally occurring compounds,or compounds essentially identical to naturally occurring compounds that are not toxic to the target pest (such as pheromones).Reported pounds of active ingredient (AI) applied include both agricultural and non-agricultural applications. The reported cumulative acres treated include primarily agricultural applications. Data are from the Department of Pesticide Regulation’s Pesticide Use Reports.


V. Trends In Pesticide Use In Certain Commodities

This chapter describes possible reasons for changes in pesticide use from 2013 to 2014 in the following commodities: alfalfa, almond, carrot, cotton, orange, pistachio, processing tomato, rice, strawberry, table and raisin grape, walnut, and wine grape. These 12 commodities were chosen because each was treated with more than 4.0 million pounds of active ingredients (AIs) or treated on more than 3 million acres, cumulatively. Collectively, this represents 71 percent of the amount reported in the PUR (77 percent of total used on agricultural fields) and 74 percent of the area treated in 2014.

Information used to develop this chapter was drawn from several publications and phone interviews with pest control advisors, growers, University of California Cooperative Extension farm advisors and specialists, researchers, and commodity association representatives. DPR staff analyzed the information, using their knowledge of pesticides, California agriculture, pests, and pest management practices. However, it is important to note these explanations for changes in pesticide use are based on anecdotal information, not rigorous statistical analyses.

This report discusses two different measures of pesticide use: amount of AI applied in pounds and cumulative area treated in acres (for an explanation of cumulative area treated see page 10). Although area treated increased from 2013 to 2014, total pounds of AIs decreased. The decrease in amount was due primarily to a decrease in use of oils and fumigants. The increase in area treated was due mostly to increased use of fungicides and insecticides (Figures 1 and 2). Sulfur had the most area treated and the largest increase among all non-adjuvant AIs. Other commonly used AIs with large increases in area treated were the insecticides methoxyfenozide, chlorantraniliprole, and spirotetramat (Figure A-1). Commonly used AIs with large increases in amount applied were sulfur, chloropicrin, and kaolin. AIs with large decreases in either amount or area treated were oil, potassium n-methyldithiocarbamate, methyl bromide, oxyfluorfen, and chlorpyrifos.

Sulfur is a natural fungicide favored by both conventional and organic farmers and is used mostly to control powdery mildew on grape and processing tomato (Figure A-2). However, it is used in some crops to suppress mites. Petroleum and mineral oils were used mostly as insecticides on almond, orange, wine grape, and walnut. Oils are also often used as fungicides and adjuvants. In production agriculture, fumigants, such as potassium n-methyldithiocarbamate, methyl bromide, and chloropicrin are usually applied to the soil before planting a crop.

Methoxyfenozide is an insect growth regulator that disrupts natural molting of caterpillars by mimicking the action of the insect hormone ecdysone. Methoxyfenozide will cause the insect to molt prematurely and to stop feeding, leading to its death. Most use is on almond for navel orangeworm control followed by use on wine grape, alfalfa, pistachio, and table and raisin grape. Chlorantraniliprole is a relatively new insecticide that interrupts muscle contraction in caterpillars and in some beetles and flies. Most chlorantraniliprole is used in almond, pistachio, and processing tomato. Spirotetramat is another new insecticide, which works by inhibiting lipid biosynthesis, affecting reproduction. Most use was on grapes, lettuce, broccoli, and orange. Kaolin is a natural white clay used both as a fungicide and an insecticide mostly on walnut, tangerine, processing tomato, and orange. Oxyfluorfen is an herbicide used primarily in almond, wine grape, walnut, and pistachio. Chlorpyrifos is an organophosphate insecticide that DPR has recently made a California restricted material. Most of the use amount was in almond, but most of the use by area treated was in alfalfa, almond, walnut, and cotton.

Crops treated with the greatest amount of pesticides in 2014 were wine grape, almond, table and raisin grape, processing tomato, and strawberry. Major crops or sites where the amount applied from 2013 to 2014 increased include processing tomato, soil fumigation, walnut, lemon, and table and raisin grape (Table 19). Crops or sites where the amount applied decreased include almond, carrot, water area, dry onion, and cotton.

Table 19, PDF: The change in pounds of AI applied and acres planted or harvested and the percent change from 2013 to 2014 for the crops or sites with the greatest increase and decrease in pounds applied.

DPR data analyses have shown that pesticide use varies from year to year. A grower’s or applicator’s decision to spray or not depends on many things, such as current pest levels and the likelihood that pest populations will increase; cost of pesticides and their application relative to the economic loss from pest damage, which depends on the expected amount of damage and the value of the crop; the availability of other methods to manage the pest; pesticide resistance; and the desire to minimize possible harm to the environment and farm workers. Pest populations are determined by many complex ecological interactions; sometimes the causes of pest outbreaks are unknown. Weather is a critically important factor and affects different pest species in different ways. For example, the winter and spring of 2014 was relatively dry and mild, conditions that reduced levels of many weeds and diseases, but helped overwintering survival of some insect pests. Insect pest populations were high in some crops in 2014, such as almond, walnut, alfalfa, but low in other crops, such as cotton and pistachio. Even though weed populations were generally low, in some cases growers applied more herbicides to reduce weed competition for water, which has become more important because of the drought. Fumigant use was down, probably because of increased cost and tighter regulations.

In the following tables, use is expressed as pounds of AI applied and as cumulative number of acres treated. However, in some tables, such as the first table in each crop section, “acres treated” values are summed across different AIs and include data from applications of products that contain more than one AI. For those applications, the acres treated during that application are only tallied once, rather than adding acres treated for each AI in the product.

Alfalfa

Alfalfa is grown primarily as a forage crop, providing protein and high energy for dairy cows and other livestock. California is the leading alfalfa hay-producing state in the United States. There are six alfalfa growing regions in California, encompassing a range of climatic conditions: Intermountain, Sacramento Valley, San Joaquin Valley, Coastal, High Desert, and Low Desert (Figure A-3). The price received per ton of hay, the acres treated, and the acres harvested all increased in 2014 (Table 20). Insecticides and herbicides continued to be the most commonly used pesticide classes in California alfalfa production (Figure 13), but greater insecticide use contributed most significantly to increases in overall acres treated with pesticides in 2014. Recent warm winters may have contributed to increasing pest densities, and the high price of hay may have provided growers with an incentive to treat for insect pests more.

Table 20, PDF: Total reported pounds of all active ingredients (AI), acres treated, acres harvested, and prices for alfalfa each year from 2010 to 2014. Harvested acres from 2010 to 2014 are from USDA, September 2015; marketing year average prices from 2010 to 2014 are from USDA, September 2015. Acres treated means cumulative acres treated (see explanation p. 10).

Figure 13, JPG: Acres of alfalfa treated by all AIs in the major types of pesticides from 1995 to 2014.

In 2014 increases in insecticide use amounts were primarily due to increased use of pyrethroids (lambda-cyhalothrin, s-cypermethrin, and especially beta-cyfluthrin and permethrin), organophosphates (chlorpyrifos and especially dimethoate), and a carbamate (methomyl) (Figures 14 and A-4). The most widely applied insecticides were lambda-cyhalothrin, dimethoate, chlorpyrifos, indoxacarb, and s-cypermethrin, though beta-cyfluthrin and methoxyfenozide were close behind. Growers generally deal with three major insect pest groups in alfalfa production: the weevil complex in late winter to spring, an aphid complex starting in late summer through spring and continuing into summer, and a lepidopteran larval complex in the summer. Of these, the blue alfalfa aphid and alfalfa weevil were identified as “critical” pests in a recent DPR-funded project on critical uses of chlorpyrifos. Aphid infestations, particularly of the blue alfalfa aphid, were very high in 2014. Host plant resistance and biological control had been the mainstays for controlling these pests, but for reasons that are still unclear, blue alfalfa aphid populations have overcome these previously successful strategies. Among the reasons offered for the upsurge in blue alfalfa aphid problems are the evolution within the aphid population that has reduced the effectiveness of current resistant varieties, resistance of the aphid to conventional insecticides, increased exposure of natural enemies to broad spectrum insecticides, and regional changes in climate that increases survival of overwintering populations. The increase in the use of chlorpyrifos, dimethoate, and pyrethroids can be linked to the blue alfalfa aphid problems that started in Imperial County in March 2013 and spread northward throughout California. In 2014, weevil problems were severe, possibly due to the dry and warm winter and spring. Such conditions promote short larval developmental times and prolonged egg-laying periods, which led to high pest pressures and increased reliance on pyrethroids and organophosphates. Repeated applications of these insecticides were needed to prevent a build-up of pest populations resulting from a prolonged egg-laying period and the emergence of a second adult generation. Additionally, the pests are developing resistance to the insecticides, further promoting more pesticide applications. The use of broad spectrum insecticides against weevils knocked down populations of natural enemies, which amplified the problems with blue alfalfa aphid. Populations of the summer lepidopteran complex were not severe in 2014, and these moth and butterfly larvae are controlled by applications of indoxacarb, methoxyfenozide, and chlorantraniliprole. Of these, only chlorantraniliprole use, as determined by area treated, increased substantially in 2014.

Figure 14, JPG: Acres of alfalfa treated by the top 5 AIs of each AI type from 2010 to 2014.

Herbicide use decreased in 2014 (Figure 13). Pendimethalin, glyphosate, clethodim, paraquat dichloride, and trifluralin were the herbicides used on the most acres; only use of glyphosate and, to a lesser extent, clethodim increased. An overall decrease in herbicide use accompanied by an increase in glyphosate use likely reflects greater adoption of Round-Up Ready alfalfa varieties. Most of these herbicides were used in the winter and spring, but glyphosate was used early in the season and in mid-summer, and clethodim was used late in the season (Figure A-5).

Use of fungicides in alfalfa is minimal compared to the use of insecticides and herbicides.

Almond

California produces 80 percent of world’s supply of almonds. Almonds are grown mainly in Kern, Merced, Fresno, Madera, Stanislaus, and San Joaquin counties in the San Joaquin Valley and in Butte and Colusa counties in the Sacramento Valley (Figure A-6). Almond acreage increased in 2014 as it has for the last several years, primarily because of the increased price of almonds (Table 21). The total amount of pesticide used on the almond crop decreased in 2014, but the cumulative area treated increased (Table 21).

Table 21, PDF: Total reported pounds of all active ingredients (AI), acres treated, acres planted, and prices for almond each year from 2010 to 2014. Planted acres from 2010 to 2014 are from CDFA, April 2015b; marketing year average prices from 2010 to 2014 are from USDA, September 2015. Acres treated means cumulative acres treated (see explanation p. 10).

The amount and area treated with insecticides decreased in 2014, mostly due to less use of petroleum-based oils (Figures 15, 16, and A-7). The major almond arthropod pests include navel orangeworm (NOW), ants, mites, peach twig borer, and San Jose scale. The warm, dry winter resulted in a large over-wintering population of NOW, which created both direct losses to the growers and nut quality problems for the handlers. Since pesticide resistance has become an important problem, growers and pesticide control advisers tried to diversify their use of pesticide products and apply products with different modes of action. The increased use of methoxyfenozide and chlorantraniliprole (Figure16) was due to resistance to pyrethroid insecticides, such as bifenthrin. Abamectin use for spider mites has decreased (Figure16) because resistance to this miticide has become fairly widespread. As a consequence, use of other miticides, such as etoxazole, increased.

Figure 15, JPG: Acres of almond treated by all AIs in the major types of pesticides from 1995 to 2014.

Herbicide use has increased steadily from 1995 to 2014, due mostly to increased almond acreage and the development of resistance to herbicides, especially glyphosate. Based on expert opinions, controlling weeds could result in a 10 to 20 percent reduction in water use, which might also explain the increase in herbicide use.

Fungicide use also increased in 2014, probably because of the increased planted acreage and the increased occurrence of brown rot blossom blight and alternaria leaf spot brought on by rain when almonds were in bloom (Figure A-8). The major almond diseases were alternaria leaf spot, brown rot, band canker, scab, and powdery mildew. The increase in fungicide use was mostly from increased use of fluopyram, metconazole, propiconazole, and pyraclostrobin. The increased use of fluopyram and metconazole was probably because of their effectiveness against a number of key diseases.

The amount of fumigants increased in 2014 but the area treated remained about the same as in 2013. Fumigants are used before Prunus species like almonds are replaced with Prunus species to control replanting disease and for postharvest treatments of nuts. The almond industry has been encouraging growers to adopt alternatives to fumigants.

Figure 16, JPG: Acres of almond treated by the top 5 AIs of each AI type from 2010 to 2014.

Carrot

California is the largest producer of fresh market carrots in the United States, accounting for 83 percent of the U.S. production of 2.5 billion pounds in 2014. California has four main production regions for carrots: the San Joaquin Valley (Kern County), the Central Coast in San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara counties (Cuyama Valley) and Monterey County, the low desert (Imperial and Riverside counties), and the high desert (Los Angeles County)(Figure A-9). The San Joaquin Valley accounts for more than half the state’s acreage.

In 2014, 66,000 acres of carrots were planted in California, an increase of about 5 percent from 2013 (Table 22). Though the area treated increased 14 percent from 2013, the amount of AI applied to carrots decreased 17 percent, largely due to the decrease in fumigant use as fungicides, herbicides, and insecticides all increased (Figure 17). Nematodes, cavity spot, and leaf blights remained the major pest concerns, while warmer weather was conducive to the occurrence of powdery mildew.

Table 22, PDF: Total reported pounds of all active ingredients (AI), acres treated, acres planted, and prices for carrot each year from 2010 to 2014. Planted acres from 2010 to 2014 are from USDA, September 2015; marketing year average prices from 2010 to 2014 are from USDA, September 2015. Acres treated means cumulative acres treated (see explanation p. 10).

The most-applied fungicides in 2014 by area treated were sulfur, mefenoxam, QST 713 strain of dried Bacillus subtilis, pyraclostrobin, and azoxystrobin. The increased occurrence of powdery mildew was largely responsible for the increase in use of sulfur (Figures 18, A-10, and A-11). The biopesticide B. subtillis continues to be popular with growers given its efficacy against soil borne disease and fungal pathogens.

As was the case in 2013, the most prominent herbicides used in carrot production by area treated in 2014 were linuron, pendimethalin, fluazifop-p-butyl, trifluralin, and EPTC (Figure 18). Linuron is a post-emergence herbicide that provides good control of broadleaf weeds and small grasses.

Figure 17, JPG: Acres of carrot treated by all AIs in the major types of pesticides from 1995 to 2014.

The most prominent insecticides used in 2014 by area treated included Paecilomyces lilacinus Strain 251, esfenvalerate, imidacloprid, methoxyfenozide, and s-cypermethrin (Figure 18). The biopesticide Paecilomyces lilacinus Strain 251 (a naturally occurring fungus with nematicidal properties) was the most widely used insecticide, followed closely by esfenvalerate, which is used against a range of insect pests such as whitefly, leafhoppers, and cutworms.

Fumigants in carrot production are primarily used to manage nematodes and also provide control of weeds and soil-borne diseases. Fumigant use continued to decline due in part to the cost and reduced efficacy associated with the shanking requirement when applying metam-sodium and metam-potassium. Fumigants accounted for 78 percent of all pesticide AIs applied to carrot acreage by amount applied and approximately 3 percent of AIs by area treated. As with the previous two years, no chloropicrin use in carrot was reported for 2014.

Figure 18, JPG: Acres of carrot treated by the top 5 AIs of each AI type from 2010 to 2014.

Cotton

Cotton is grown for its fiber, but cottonseed can be used to produce cottonseed oil and cottonseed meal for dairy feed. Total planted acreage decreased in 2014 partly because of the drought and competition from other higher value perennial crops, such as nuts, stone fruits, and grapes (Table 23). Most cotton is grown in the southern San Joaquin Valley, with smaller acreages grown in Imperial and Riverside counties and a few counties in the Sacramento Valley (Figure A-12). Nearly all pesticide use decreased from 2013 to 2014.

Table 23, PDF: Total reported pounds of all active ingredients (AI), acres treated, acres planted, and prices for cotton each year from 2010 to 2014. Planted acres from 2010 to 2014 are from USDA, September 2015; marketing year average prices from 2010 to 2014 are from USDA, September 2015. Acres treated means cumulative acres treated (see explanation p. 10).

Figure 19, JPG: Acres of cotton treated by all AIs in the major types of pesticides from 1995 to 2014.

Figure 20, JPG: Acres of cotton treated by the top 5 AIs of each AI type from 2010 to 2014.

Use of all major insecticides decreased in 2014, except for buprofezin and flubendiamide (Figures 19, 20, A-13, and A-14). The major arthropod pests in cotton in 2014 were lygus bugs, spider mites, cotton aphids, whiteflies, and thrips. However, there were sporadic damaging populations of other pests, such as palestriped flea beetles and brown stink bugs. Arthropod populations were generally low during most of the year, except for late season whiteflies and aphids, which were both at about the same populations as in 2013. The foothills surrounding the San Joaquin Valley were not a source for lygus bugs migrating into cotton as they had been in the past because winter and early spring rainfall patterns resulted in less-than-ideal vegetative habitat for lygus. Late season aphids and whiteflies are a serious concern because they produce sugary excretions, which drop onto the cotton lint creating a condition called “sticky cotton.” This condition causes problems when the cotton is ginned and lowers the quality of the cotton lint and thus the price growers receive. One factor partly responsible for larger whitefly populations in recent years is the California drought.

Use of nearly all major herbicides decreased (Figures 19, 20, and A-13). As has been the case for the last several years, glyphosate was by far the most-used herbicide due to the large acreage of Roundup-Ready cotton, which is genetically engineered to be resistant to glyphosate. Some AIs, such as paraquat dichloride, are used both as herbicides and harvest aids, chemicals used to defoliate or desiccate cotton plants before harvest. It is assumed that if an herbicide was applied in August through November, it was used as a harvest aid, otherwise as an herbicide (Figure A-14).

Fungicides are not widely used in cotton, but until 2013 use had been increasing because of increased incidence of seedling diseases, especially the disease caused by Rhizoctonia solani.

Fumigants are also little used in cotton fields and their use decreased from 2013 to 2014, but that was mostly because use in 2013 was unusually high. Fumigants are used to treat the soil before planting for a range of soil pathogens, nematodes, and weeds and are also used to treat stored products. The increased use in cotton in the last few years may be the result of concern about the soil-inhabiting fungus Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. vasinfectum race 4, more commonly known as FOV race 4, which is spreading throughout the San Joaquin Valley. Some experts consider this pathogen to be one of the biggest challenges California cotton growers have faced in many years. Once a field is infected, it is impossible to achieve economic yields with many cotton varieties. The pathogen cannot be completely controlled by pesticides, but some research has shown that metam-sodium treatments can knock down inoculum populations, and this may explain the increased use of fumigants. However, they will not eradicate the disease.

Orange

California has the highest valued citrus industry in the United States. Citrus is grown in four major areas in California. The San Joaquin Valley Region comprises nearly 65 percent of the state’s acreage and is characterized by hot, dry summers and cold, wet winters. The Interior Region includes Riverside and San Bernardino counties and inland portions of San Diego, Orange, and Los Angeles counties and is marginally affected by the coastal climate. The Coastal-Intermediate Region is from Santa Barbara County south to the San Diego County/Mexico border and has a mild climate that is influenced by marine air. The Desert Region includes the Coachella and Imperial valleys where temperatures fluctuate widely (Figure A-15).

Table 24, PDF: Total reported pounds of all active ingredients (AI), acres treated, acres bearing, and prices for orange each year from 2010 to 2014. Bearing acres from 2010 to 2014 are from USDA, September 2015; marketing year average prices from 2010 to 2014 are from USDA, September 2015. Acres treated means cumulative acres treated (see explanation p. 10).

Total bearing acres decreased in 2014 by 24 percent (Table 24), continuing a three-year decline due in part to a reduction in available irrigation water. The price per box, however, increased 46 percent in 2014. Record low freezing temperatures in December 2013 in the Central Valley caused a lot of damage to citrus.

Insecticide use was approximately the same in 2014 as in 2013, but from 2008 to 2013 its use increased (Figure 21). Oils are the most widely used insecticides on oranges (Figure 22). It is a class of broad spectrum pesticides that kills soft-bodied insects such as aphids, immature whiteflies, immature scales, psyllids, immature true bugs, thrips, and some insect eggs, as well as mites. Oils also control powdery mildew and other fungi.

The Asian citrus psyllid (ACP), which vectors huanglongbing (citrus greening disease), was first detected in Los Angeles in 2008. Since that time it has spread throughout southern California, up the Central Coast as far north as the Santa Barbara/San Luis Obispo county line, and to two locations in Tulare County in the San Joaquin Valley. However, despite eradication efforts, treatments have not prevented the spread of ACP, and it remains a major concern.

Aside from its use for the ACP eradication program, the broad-spectrum insecticide chlorpyrifos is used primarily for citricola scale control. However, chlorpyrifos resistance in citricola scale populations has been documented and imidacloprid is increasingly being used to help suppress these resistant populations. Although its use decreased in 2014, its use has otherwise steadily increased since 2005 (Figures A-16 and A-17). Imidacloprid is also used in the glassy-winged sharpshooter treatment program, and orange growers are required to treat for the pest.

Figure 21, JPG: Acres of orange treated by all AIs in the major types of pesticides from 1995 to 2014.

Spinosad and spinetoram are relatively new insecticides and are primarily used on citrus to manage citrus thrips (Figure 22). Both are very selective, allowing natural enemies to survive. They may eventually erode the market share of older insecticides. Of the two, spinetoram is more effective against citrus thrips populations that have developed resistance to carbamate insecticides, and its persistence and effectiveness has resulted in the reduced use of spinosad.

Fenpropathrin is used to control red mites, citrus thrips, Asian citrus psyllid, katydids, and other miscellaneous pests. The insecticidal activity of fenpropathrin is largely interchangeable with that of beta-cyfluthrin, another synthetic pyrethroid. Abamectin is used to control thrips, mites, and citrus leafminer, and it is preferred because it is inexpensive and has broad-spectrum and long residual activity, low worker risk, and a short pre-harvest interval. Dimethoate controls a variety of pests such as scales and thrips, but its declining use is likely due to the growing popularity of replacement insecticides such as spinetoram and the neonicotinoids imidacloprid and acetamiprid. Pyriproxyfen is used almost exclusively for California red scale control. In the San Joaquin Valley, populations of armored scale have been found to be resistant to chlorpyrifos, methidathion, and carbaryl, and growers are encouraged to release parasitic wasps and use buprofezin, oil, pyriproxyfen, and spirotetramat.

Fungicides are used to prevent Phytophthora gummosis, Phytophthora root rot, and fruit diseases such as brown rot and Septoria spot. These diseases are exacerbated by wet, cool weather during harvest, but the spring of 2014 was dominated by warm, dry weather. Fungicide use decreased both in area treated and amount applied in 2014 (Figure 21). These decreases are attributable to a substantial decrease in the use of copper-based fungicides, which are the most widely used fungicides in oranges.

Figure 22, JPG: Acres of orange treated by the top 5 AIs of each AI type from 2010 to 2014.

Weed control is important in citrus groves to prevent weeds from affecting tree growth and yields and impeding production and harvesting operations. A combination of pre-and post-emergence herbicides is used, as well as mechanical removal. Glyphosate, a post-emergence herbicide, was the most-used herbicide (Figure 22). Saflufenacil is a post-emergence, burn-down herbicide that was first used in 2010, and its use has steadily increased. There is a growing problem with resistance of horseweed and fleabane to glyphosate, and saflufenacil is a contact herbicide that is a good replacement. Indaziflam is a pre-emergence herbicide, and its use has increased every year since 2011, when it was first registered for use in California.

Pistachio

In 2014, California accounted for more than 221,000 bearing acres of pistachio, or almost 99 percent of the U.S. crop (Table 25). Worldwide, the U.S. has become the top pistachio producer, followed by Iran. The increase in pistachio acreage is projected to continue during the next few years due to a surge in planting around 2005. Pistachio is grown in 22 counties, from San Bernardino County in the south to Tehama County in the north, with most grown in the San Joaquin Valley counties of Kern, Madera, Fresno, and Tulare (Figure A-18). Pistachio trees usually alternate between high and low production each year. Most of California’s tree crops produced well in 2014, and the pistachio crop had a total yield of nearly 513 million pounds, up 9 percent from the yield in 2013.

Table 25, PDF: Total reported pounds of all active ingredients (AI), acres treated, acres bearing, and prices for pistachio each year from 2010 to 2014. Bearing acres from 2010 to 2014 are from USDA, September 2015; marketing year average prices from 2010 to 2014 are from USDA, September 2015. Acres treated means cumulative acres treated (see explanation p. 10).

In 2014, important arthropod pests of pistachio included mites, leaffooted plant bug, false chinch bug, stink bugs, and navel orangeworm (NOW), although pest populations were low in many areas. Insecticide use, as measured by area treated, increased 17 percent from 2013 to 2014, primarily due to additional bearing acres, a relatively late harvest, and perceived late-season threats by leaffooted plant bug, stink bugs, and NOW (Figures 23, A-19, and A-20). Leaffooted plant bugs usually appear just before harvest in August and September, but early-season feeding can cause epicarp lesion to the nuts shortly after bloom and lead to kernel necrosis after shell hardening in June, darkening the nutmeat and ruining the flavor. Stink bugs can also be late-season pests, causing kernel necrosis during July and August. Often growers preemptively apply insecticides, primarily lambda-cyhalothrin and permethrin, before any of the bugs can do much damage.

Figure 23, JPG: Acres of pistachio treated by all AIs in the major types of pesticides from 1995 to 2014.

NOW feeds directly on the nutmeat. As the larvae feed, they leave behind frass (or excrement), a substrate for the fungi Aspergillus flavus and A. parasiticus. NOW attacks nuts beginning in July, but insecticide sprays target the third generation that coincides with the beginning of the nut harvest. NOW pressure was lower in 2014 than in 2013, but growers sprayed lambda-cyhalothrin, bifenthrin, chlorantraniliprole, and methoxyfenozide preemptively. The NOW larvae overwinter in mummy nuts on the ground, and during dry winters they avoid the fungal diseases that would normally kill them under wet conditions. The use of mating-disruption pheromone puffers have increased steadily since 2011. Puffers contain the active ingredient (Z,Z)-11, 13-hexadecadienal and in April 2014 were used in a voluntary area-wide program targeting Kern County’s West Side, where the risk of NOW damage is unusually high.

Figure 24, JPG: Acres of pistachio treated by the top 5 AIs of each AI type from 2010 to 2014.

Use of the most prominent fungicides increased (Figure 24). Aspergillus flavus strain AF36 is lumped with the fungicides, but is actually a fungal inoculant that acts as a biological control agent and prevents contamination of nuts by aflatoxins. The aflatoxin-producing fungi, a complex of Aspergillus flavus and A. parasiticus, grow on pest-damaged nuts. Aflatoxins are both toxic and carcinogenic. About half of the strains of A. flavus found in orchards are atoxigenic—that is, they do not produce aflatoxin. However, almost all A. parasiticus strains produce aflatoxins. When applied to orchards, the harmless, atoxigenic strain of Aspergillus flavus, AF36, crowds out aflatoxin-producing strains and drastically reduces aflatoxin levels in the nuts. In 2014, AF36 was used on more than 65 percent of all bearing trees; it also qualifies for use on certified organic pistachio.

Sulfur, used as a low-risk miticide, is applied at several pounds per acre. Sulfur is commonly used to manage citrus flat mite, which feeds on the stems of nut clusters, the nut hulls, and nuts themselves, leading to shell stain. As the weather warms up in June, mite populations thrive and peak in late July and August. In 2014, growers began applying sulfur for mites in April and continued applying higher-than-usual amounts through the warm spring and summer (Figure A-20).

Use of all major herbicides decreased (Figure 24) due to drought conditions during the growing season. The post-emergence herbicide glyphosate is applied year-round, but mostly during the summer months (Figure A-20) to manage weeds such as field bindweed and cheeseweed. Under drought conditions, herbicides, both pre-emergence and post-emergence, are still needed to limit weed growth. Reducing competition from weeds extends limited supplies of irrigation water and protects young trees from the false chinch bug, which builds up on weeds next to the orchards.

Processing tomato

In 2014, processing tomato growers planted 292,000 acres, yielding 14 million tons, a 16 percent yield increase from 2013. About 95 percent of U.S. processing tomatoes are grown in California. At 34 percent, the U.S. is the world’s top producer of processing tomatoes followed by the European Union and China. California processing tomatoes, valued at $1.25 billion in 2014, are primarily grown in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys (Figure A-21). Fresno County leads the state in acreage with 31 percent (90,000 acres) of the statewide total, followed by Yolo County (37,000 acres), San Joaquin County (35,000 acres), and Kings County (31,000 acres). Significant production also occurs in Merced, Colusa, Kern, Solano, and Stanislaus counties.

Overall, use of pesticide active ingredients (AIs) increased 7 percent, from 13.9 million pounds in 2013 to 14.9 million pounds in 2014 (Table 26). Total cumulative area treated of processing tomatoes also increased 7 percent. Sulfur, metam-sodium, and potassium N-methyldithiocarbamate (metam-potassium) accounted for 86 percent of the total pounds of pesticide AIs applied, while sulfur, imidacloprid, azoxystrobin, trifluralin, chlorothalonil, and s-metolachlor were applied to the most acreage (Figure A-22). The most-used category as measured by acres treated was insecticides, which increased 8 percent from 2013 to 2014 (Figure 25). The most-used category as measured by amount AI applied was fungicide/insecticide (mostly sulfur and kaolin); use in this category increased 11 percent.

Table 26, PDF: Total reported pounds of all active ingredients (AI), acres treated, acres planted, and prices for processing tomato each year from 2010 to 2014. Planted acres from 2010 to 2014 are from USDA, September 2015; marketing year average prices from 2010 to 2014 are from USDA, September 2015. Acres treated means cumulative acres treated (see explanation p. 10).

Figure 25, JPG: Acres of processing tomato treated by all AIs in the major types of pesticides from 1995 to 2014.

Figure 26, JPG: Acres of processing tomato treated by the top 5 AIs of each AI type from 2010 to 2014.

Overall fungicide use, expressed as cumulative area treated, increased 21 percent; pounds of AI increased 11 percent. Since 2009, use of difenoconazole and azoxystrobin has continuously increased, likely because of increasingly severe powdery mildew outbreaks in the last few years (Figure 26). As a result of these outbreaks, growers must now apply preventive treatments instead of treating powdery mildew as it appears. Pyraclostrobin and fluxapyroxad use in 2014 increased by 47 percent and 137 percent, respectively. These two active ingredients are combined in a product used to control powdery mildew.

The acreage treated with herbicides increased 5 percent from 2013 to 2014 (Figure 25); the amount used increased 2 percent. Primary weeds of concern for processing tomatoes are nightshades and bindweed. Trifluralin and pendimethalin are used to control bindweed and are often used in combination with metolachlor. The use of pendimethalin decreased 21 percent, trifluralin use increased 18 percent, and metolachlor use increased 9 percent (Figure 26). Recent phytotoxicity issues with trifluralin and pendimethalin may contribute in part to an increase in the use of metolachlor. Glyphosate is commonly used for preplant treatments in late winter and early spring (Figure A-23); its use decreased 9 percent.

Processing tomato growers primarily use three fumigants—metam-potassium, metam-sodium, and 1,3-dichloropropene—to manage root-knot nematodes and weeds, particularly those of the nightshade family. In 2014, fumigant use decreased 6 percent and accounted for about 16 percent of the total amount of pesticide AIs applied. In terms of area treated, fumigant use increased 6 percent. The increase in fumigated acres is due to a 24 percent increase in acres treated with metam sodium.

In 2014, 1.3 million acres were treated with insecticides, an 8 percent increase from 2013 (Figure 25). This increase was likely to control a population explosion of thrips, which vectors tomato spotted wilt virus. For the last several years, growers have been treating for thrips more frequently and earlier in the season (Figure A-23), which effectively reduces tomato spotted wilt virus. Dimethoate, the use of which decreased 25 percent, is a broad spectrum insecticide used for thrips control. However, its use early in the season can disrupt natural predation and cause population explosions of other insect pests, such as leafminers, later in the season. A secondary pest increase due to the use of broad spectrum insecticides may account for the 72 percent increase in use of methoxyfenozide. Methomyl use increased 13 percent, even though growers have begun switching to pyrethroids such as bifenthrin because of worker safety considerations. Bifenthrin, the use of which increased 43 percent, is a broad spectrum pyrethroid often used in rotation with spinosad for thrips control. Bifenthrin is also used to manage mites and stinkbugs.

The use imidacloprid, the most-used insecticide by area treated, decreased 7 percent from the previous year. This may account for the increased use of other pesticides to treat thrips. Use of insecticides targeting lepidopterous larvae increased in 2014 due to increased pest pressure: flubendiamide use increased 64 percent, while chlorantraniliprole use increased 20 percent.

Rice

California is the largest producer of short and medium grain (Calrose) Japonica rice in the United States and the second largest rice growing state in the nation. Ninety-five percent of the rice in California is grown in six counties in the Sacramento Valley (Colusa, Sutter, Glenn, Butte, Yuba, and Yolo, Figure A-24). The drought has had marked effects on rice growers and water cutbacks have caused significant reduction in rice plantings. In 2014 the acres planted with rice decreased 23 percent from 2013 (Table 27).

Table 27, PDF: Total reported pounds of all active ingredients (AI), acres treated, acres planted, and prices for rice each year from 2010 to 2014. Planted acres from 2010 to 2014 are from USDA, September 2015; marketing year average prices from 2010 to 2014 are from USDA, September 2015. Acres treated means cumulative acres treated (see explanation p. 10)..

Herbicides were the most-used class of pesticides on rice in 2014 (Figure 27). They accounted for 72 percent of the cumulative area treated with non-adjuvant pesticides and 59 percent of the total amount of AIs applied. Much of California’s rice is grown repeatedly in the same fields and growers are heavily dependent on herbicides for effective weed control. Many of the weed species are difficult to control and severely compete with the rice crop for resources if no control method is adopted.

Many species of broadleaf, grass, and sedge weeds that grow along with rice have been developing resistance to herbicides. In addition to the well-established resistances to acetolactate synthase (ALS)-inhibiting herbicides, such as bensulfuron methyl, and resistance of certain watergrass types to propanil, new resistances have been observed in bearded sprangletop to clomazone and cyhalofop-butyl, and sedge to propanil. The increased use of thiobencarb in 2014 was probably due to the evolving resistance of spangletop to clomazone and cyhalofop-butyl. Bensulfuron methyl use may have decreased due to the 2013 introduction of the formulated mixture of thiobencarb and imazosulfuron which controls bensulfuron methyl-resistant sedges (Figures 28 and A-25).

Figure 27, JPG: Acres of rice treated by all AIs in the major types of pesticides from 1995 to 2014.

The area treated with fungicides decreased 12 percent (Figure 27), but the amount applied increased 46 percent. The increase was almost entirely due to the increased use of sodium carbonate peroxyhydrate, which is approved as an organic fungicide for rice. Azoxystrobin was the major fungicide used on rice, accounting for 82 percent of all the cumulative area treated with fungicides (Figures 28 and A-25). Azoxystrobin, propiconazole, and trifloxystrobin are reduced-risk fungicides often used as preventive treatments. The two strobilurin fungicides (azoxystrobin and trifloxystrobin) are used due to their effectiveness as well as their ability to increase yields when used in preventive treatments.

Copper sulfate is the key algaecide registered for rice in California. It is used primarily for algae control in rice fields, but also doubles as a control for tadpole shrimp in both conventional and organic production. Copper sulfate is known to bind to organic matter such as straw residue, potentially reducing its efficacy. Its use has been decreasing in the past few years probably due to increases in price, inconsistency of supply, and variability in efficacy (Figure A-25).

Insect pressures are usually low on California rice, and insecticides are used on few acres (Figure 27). Use of insecticides decreased in area and amount applied in 2014. Rice water weevil is the major insect pest on California rice, but tadpole shrimp are becoming more problematic, and in some areas they are the main pest attacking rice during the seedling stage. Growers rely on lambda-cyhalothrin and copper sulfate pentahydrate applied soon after flooding (Figure 28).

Figure 28, JPG: Acres of rice treated by the top 5 AIs of each AI type from 2010 to 2014.

Strawberry

In 2014 California produced 2.3 billion pounds of strawberries—over 88 percent of the total U.S. production—valued at more than $2.6 billion. Market prices determine how much of the crop goes to fresh market and how much is processed, and in 2014, about 75 percent of the crop went to fresh market. About 41,500 acres of strawberries were planted and harvested in 2014 (Table 28), primarily along the central and southern coast, with smaller but significant production occurring in the Central Valley (Figure A-27).

Table 28, PDF: Total reported pounds of all active ingredients (AI), acres treated, acres planted, and prices for strawberry each year from 2010 to 2014. Planted acres from 2010 to 2014 are from USDA, September 2015; marketing year average prices from 2010 to 2014 are from USDA, September 2015. Acres treated means cumulative acres treated (see explanation p. 10).

The major insect pests of strawberries are lygus bugs and worms (various moth and beetle larvae), especially in the Central and South Coast growing areas. Until recently, lygus bugs were not considered a problem in the South Coast, but lygus has become a serious threat probably due to warmer, drier winters and increased diversity in the regional crop complex that supports this pest. Flonicamid, an insecticide used to control lygus, was applied to 24 percent more acres in 2014 (Figures A-28 and A-29).

Herbicide use in 2014 did not differ significantly from the previous year. Several herbicides, such as flumioxazin and napropamide, showed a slight decrease in area treated. Other herbicides, primarily carfentrazone-ethyl and pendimethalin, were applied to more acres in 2014 than 2013.

Fungicides continue to be the most-used pesticides in 2014, as measured by area treated. The area treated with nearly every major fungicide in strawberries increased in 2014 (Figure 29). It is possible that these increases are partially due to the continuing effects of the statewide drought: Lack of rainfall can cause salt buildup in the soil, leading to plant stress and increased disease susceptibility.

Figure 29, JPG: Acres of strawberry treated by all AIs in the major types of pesticides from 1995 to 2014.

Figure 30, JPG: Acres of strawberry treated by the top 5 AIs of each AI type from 2010 to 2014.

Strawberry production relies on several fumigants. Fumigants accounted for about 81 percent of the amount of all pesticide AIs applied to strawberries in 2014, but less than two percent of the total cumulative area treated. However, most strawberry fields are fumigated. The area treated with fumigants in 2014 decreased 3 percent (Figures 30 and A-28). Methyl bromide use decreased by 29 percent, metam-sodium use decreased by 38 percent, and 1,3-dichloropropene use decreased by 11 percent. Chloropicrin use decreased by roughly 1 percent. Methyl bromide is used primarily to control pathogens and nutsedge. Metam-sodium is generally more effective in controlling weeds, but less effective than 1,3-dichloropropene or 1,3-dichloropropene plus chloropicrin against soilborne diseases and nematodes. Fumigants usually are applied at higher rates than other pesticide types, such as fungicides and insecticides, in part because they treat a volume of space rather than a surface such as leaves and stems of plants. Thus, the amounts applied are large relative to other pesticide types even though the number of applications or number of acres treated may be relatively small.

Table and raisin grape

The southern San Joaquin Valley region accounts for more than 90 percent of California’s raisin and table grape production (Figure A-30). Total acreage planted to table and raisin grape decreased by 10,000 acres in 2014, even as average prices increased (Table 29). Raisin grapes accounted for the decrease; table grape acreage increased slightly. Raisin prices declined due to labor shortages and the lure of higher value crops. Thompson Seedless was again the leading raisin grape variety, while Flame Seedless was again the leading table grape variety.

Changes in pesticide use on table and raisin grape, like those on wine grape, are influenced by a number of factors, including weather, topography, pest pressure, evolution of resistance, competition from newer pesticide products, commodity prices, application restrictions, and efforts by growers to reduce costs.

Table 29, PDF: Total reported pounds of all active ingredients (AI), acres treated, acres planted, and prices for table and raisin grape each year from 2010 to 2014. Planted acres from 2011 to 2014 are from CDFA, April 2015a; planted acres in 2010 are from USDA, October 2012; marketing year average prices from 2010 to 2014 are from USDA, September 2015. Acres treated means cumulative acres treated (see explanation p. 10).

Figure 31, JPG: Acres of table and raisin grape treated by all AIs in the major types of pesticides from 1995 to 2014.

Figure 32, JPG: Acres of table and raisin grape treated by the top 5 AIs of each AI type from 2010 to 2014.

Pest pressure was relatively “normal” in 2014. As a consequence, the cumulative area treated with insecticides changed little from 2013 (Figure 31); the amount of insecticide applied did not change much either. The insecticides applied to the greatest area in 2014 were the same as in 2013: imidacloprid, spirotetramat, abamectin, methoxyfenozide, spinetoram, and Bacillus thuringiensis (Figures 32 and A-31). Except for methoxyfenozide, modest increases in treated acreage was observed for all of these insecticides. As in 2013, warm spring temperatures allowed early build-up of vine mealybug (VMB) populations. Imidacloprid (Figure A-32) and buprofezin are used during warm weather between bud break and harvest to control mealybug infestations. Spirotetramat also provides control of mealybugs; its use has steadily increased since its registration in 2008. Chlorpyrifos has been used as a delayed dormant or post-harvest spray to prevent spring build-ups of VMB populations, but its use was down in 2014, possibly in anticipation of new regulation then proposed by DPR. Abamectin and etoxazole are used to treat for mites, which were again a concern for growers due to above average temperatures early in the growing season. The use of cryolite, a pesticide approved for use on organically grown produce, decreased again in 2014, a trend that has continued since at least 2004. Cryolite is a stomach poison applied early in the season to control lepidopteran pests such as omnivorous leafroller. Methoxyfenozide controls similar pests, but can be used later in the growing season than cryolite. Use of spinosad increased in 2014. Changes in the price of products, growers looking to purchase the cheapest product that will provide control, and rotation of AIs to avoid resistance can explain much of the patterns of change in insecticide use.

The area treated with sulfur did not change, and the area treated with all other fungicides taken as a group decreased marginally (Figure 31). Fungicides with the greatest area treated included sulfur, copper-based pesticides, myclobutanil, boscalid, pyraclostrobin (boscalid and pyraclostrobin are used as a mixture), trifloxystrobin, and quinoxyfen (Figure 32). Other commonly used fungicides were cyprodinil and tebuconazole. Acres treated with three recently registered fungicides (tetraconazole, metrafenone, and fludioxonil) increased in 2014, while use of difenoconazole, another recently registered fungicide, decreased slightly. This is the reverse of their use pattern in 2013, except for tetraconazole, which had increased use in both 2013 and 2014. This pattern can be explained by growers rotating AIs to delay the evolution of resistance.

The area treated with herbicides decreased marginally in 2014 (Figure 31). With drought continuing into a third year, weed growth may have been inhibited to some extent. The herbicides applied to the greatest area were glyphosate, paraquat dichloride, oxyfluorfen, pendimethalin, and rimsulfuron (Figure 32). Glyphosate use decreased by a small amount, likely in response to continuing concerns over weed resistance to this AI. Glufosinate-ammonium is an attractive alternative to glyphosate, but stocks have been low in the last few years due to high demand in the Midwest and the South, where corn and soybean varieties genetically engineered for resistance to glufosinate-ammonium have been extensively planted in these regions. Glufosinate-ammonium was more widely available in 2014 due to some new product registrations; its use increased from approximately 10,000 acres to approximately 45,000 acres. The only other herbicide that saw much more use in 2014 was trifluralin, which was applied on about 25,000 acres. A new AI, indaziflam, registered in 2012, was applied to almost 23,000 acres in 2014. It is a pre-emergence herbicide that is effective on glyphosate-resistant weeds. However, it is only labeled for vines older than five years and will likely be used only a couple seasons in a row in the same vineyard, due to its long residual activity.

Use of all the major fumigants increased in 2014; about 4,500 acres were treated. Half of these applications were of aluminum phosphide; 1,3-dichloropropene accounted for 1,400 acres treated.

The area treated with plant growth regulators (PGRs) changed little in 2014. The most commonly used PGRs were gibberellins, which are applied in early spring to lengthen and loosen grape clusters and increase berry size (Figure A-32). Less compact clusters may be less vulnerable to berry splitting and bunch rot. Ethephon was the next most commonly applied PGR. Ethephon is applied at onset of ripening to improve berry color. Its use in conjunction with S-abscisic acid for this purpose was recently extolled, and an increase in S-abscisic acid use in 2014 suggests that this advice was being heeded. Use of this mix is likely to increase in the future, especially on Crimsons, as its berries tend not to redden in high heat. PGRs that were used more widely in 2014 were hydrogen cyanamide and forchlorfenuron. Hydrogen cyanamide is applied after pruning to promote bud break, and forchlorfenuron is applied at fruit set to increase the size of berries.

Walnut

California produces 99 percent of the walnuts grown in the United States. The California walnut industry is comprised of over 4,000 growers who farmed approximately 290,000 bearing acres in 2014 (Table 30 and Figure A-33). According to the 2014 Walnut Objective Measurement Report, mild temperatures led to faster crop development and an earlier harvest. Walnut production was estimated at 545,000 tons in 2014, an increase of about 10 percent from the previous year. The price per ton decreased by about 13 percent, while bearing acreage increased by almost 4 percent. The amount of applied pesticide AIs increased by 13 percent, and the area treated increased by 15 percent. In general, pesticide use followed similar trends seen in recent years, with increases in fungicide, insecticide, and herbicide use, though fumigant use declined (Figure 33).

The area treated with insecticides, which includes miticides, increased 13 percent (Figure 33). Reasons include increased acreage and relatively warm temperatures throughout the growing season, especially in the spring, which allowed insects to mature faster and shorten the time between generations. Pressure from walnut husk fly and navel orangeworm continued to increase, and a rise in post-harvest worm damage was noted. Abamectin, a miticide, remained the most-used insecticide because of its low cost and continued efficacy, while another miticide, hexythiazox, saw a large increase in treated acreage (Figures 34 and A-34). Drought and hot weather conditions may have contributed to the increased mite pressure.

Table 30, PDF: Total reported pounds of all active ingredients (AI), acres treated, acres bearing, and prices for walnut each year from 2010 to 2014. Bearing acres from 2010 to 2014 are from USDA, September 2015; marketing year average prices from 2010 to 2014 are from USDA, September 2015. Acres treated means cumulative acres treated (see explanation p. 10).

Figure 33, JPG: Acres of walnut treated by all AIs in the major types of pesticides from 1995 to 2014

Figure 34, JPG: Acres of walnut treated by the top 5 AIs of each AI type from 2010 to 2014.

The 8 percent increase in the area treated with herbicides (Figure 33) reflects the increase in walnut acreage, especially young plantings, where weeds thrive until tree canopies are capable of shading orchard floors. In addition, a relatively dry winter adversely impacted or even prevented the use of pre-emergence herbicide programs and may have contributed to increased use of post-emergence herbicides like glyphosate and saflufenacil (Figures A-34 and A-35). Saflufenacil’s favorable pricing and very good efficacy against most broadleaf weeds, including glyphosate-resistant hairy fleabane in the San Joaquin Valley, likely contributed to its increased use (Figures 34 and A-34). Use of the relatively new herbicide indaziflam continues to increase because of its long-lasting, broad spectrum control of weeds.

The area treated with fungicides increased 32 percent (Figure 33). Copper-based fungicides and mancozeb, which are both used for blight control, had the highest use, and use amounts were similar to those in 2013. Use of other fungicides, such as pyraclostrobin, boscalid, propiconazole, and azoxystrobin, saw large increases (Figures 34 and A-34). These increases were likely due to the increased occurrence of Botryosphaeria canker (Bot), a fungal disease that is able to kill wood within infested walnut orchards and cause severe crop loss. Currently there are no guidelines for treating Bot, and growers are spraying 3–4 times a year, in response to increased diagnosis and as a preventative measure given the seriousness of the disease.

The area treated with the fumigants methyl bromide, 1,3-dichloropropene, chloropicrin, and aluminum phosphide decreased (Figures 34 and A-34). Most fumigants are applied to the soil before planting while aluminum phosphide is used for rodent control. Given the cost and tighter regulations, some growers are using alternatives to pre-plant fumigation, such as fallowing or cover-cropping for a year prior to replanting orchards.

Wine grape

There are four major wine grape production regions: 1) North Coast (Lake, Mendocino, Napa, Sonoma, and Solano counties); 2) Central Coast (Alameda, Monterey, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, San Benito, Santa Cruz, and Santa Clara counties); 3) northern San Joaquin Valley (San Joaquin, Calaveras, Amador, Sacramento, Merced, Stanislaus, and Yolo counties); and 4) southern San Joaquin Valley (Fresno, Kings, Tulare, Kern, and Madera counties) (Figure A-36). Pest and disease pressure may differ among these regions. The pooled figures in this report may not reflect differences in pesticide use patterns between production regions.

Changes in pesticide use on wine grape are influenced by a number of factors, including weather, topography, pest pressure, evolution of resistance, competition from newer pesticide products, commodity prices, application restrictions, efforts by growers to reduce costs, and increased emphasis on sustainable farming.

Table 31, PDF: Total reported pounds of all active ingredients (AI), acres treated, acres planted, and prices for wine grape each year from 2010 to 2014. Planted acres from 2011 to 2014 are from CDFA, April 2015a; planted acres in 2010 are from USDA, October 2012; marketing year average prices from 2010 to 2014 are from USDA, September 2015. Acres treated means cumulative acres treated (see explanation p. 10).

Figure 35, JPG: Acres of wine grape treated by all AIs in the major types of pesticides from 1995 to 2014.

Figure 36, JPG: Acres of wine grape treated by the top 5 AIs of each AI type from 2010 to 2014.

By most accounts, 2014 was another good year for wine grape growers, with relatively low levels of pressure from pests and disease. The total amount of pesticide AIs applied in 2014 and the cumulative area treated were very close to 2013 values (Table 31).

Vine mealybug (VMB) continued to be a concern for growers. It has now been found throughout most of the grape-growing regions of California. The warm winters since 2012 have allowed VMB populations to build up early in the season. In the North Coast region, a new pest, the Virginia creeper leafhopper, caused substantial damage in some locations, as did the western grape leafhopper. While there is effective biological control for western grape leafhopper, Virginia creeper leafhopper infestations require insecticide applications. In contrast, pest pressure from the invasive European grapevine moth has lessened, and consequently the area under quarantine was further reduced in August 2014. Spider mites were a problem in some vineyards stressed by drought. Overall, the amount of insecticide applied to wine grape and the area treated increased slightly in 2014 (Figure 35). The insecticides applied to the greatest acreage in 2014 were imidacloprid, abamectin, spirotetramat, methoxyfenozide, and oils, as was the case in 2013 (Figures 36 and A-37). Other widely applied insecticides were etoxazole, chlorantraniliprole, thiamethoxam, buprofezin, and Bacillus thuringiensis. Imidacloprid and spirotetramat are used to suppress VMB populations mid-season (Figure A-38), and a decrease in imidacloprid use and an increase in spirotetramat use likely reflects growers cognizance of the need to rotate the use of insecticides with different modes of action. Oils have many attractive, broad spectrum properties and are relatively low risk to public health and the environment. Mixed with fungicides, oils can replace a surfactant and eradicate mildew growth, as well as suppress mites and insects such as grape leafhoppers. The area treated with chlorantraniliprole, first registered in 2008, decreased from 2012 to 2014. Chlorantraniliprole is relatively selective and methoxyfenozide is highly selective for lepidopteran pests. Both AIs are used in the control of the European grapevine moth. Use of the low-risk insecticide Bacillus thuringiensis again decreased. The total area treated with chlorpyrifos, which is also used to suppress VMB populations, declined again in 2014. Use of this insecticide has trended downward in wine grapes since 2008 (excepting 2012). Chlorpyrifos was used in delayed dormant and post-harvest applications for control of mealybugs and ants. Besides abamectin, the miticides etoxazole, bifenazate, fenproximate and hexathiazox were relatively widely used; use of bifenazate and fenproximate was substantially down in 2014, however, while use of etoxazole was only moderately higher than in 2013. These compounds were used to suppress populations of mites that were favored in some regions by a warm, early spring.

Due to another warm, dry year, fungal pathogens were not as big a problem as in previous years. Fungicide use amounts were quite similar to those in 2013, with marginal decreases in area treated with most AIs. The fungicides applied to the largest area included sulfur, copper-based pesticides, quinoxyfen, boscalid, pyraclostrobin (boscalid and pyraclostrobin are used as a mixture), tebuconazole, and myclobutanil (Figure 36). Other widely applied fungicides were trifloxystrobin, tetraconazole, and metrafenone. Tebuconazole, metrafenone, and fluopyram were the only fungicides that were used on substantially more acres in 2014. Metrafenone has a new mode of action, is easily absorbed by the plant, and helps prevent sporulation—all factors that are likely to lead to its greater use. Fluopyram, a fungicide effective in suppressing powdery mildew, was registered in 2012 and was applied to 119,000 acres in 2014. It was generally applied as a mix with tebuconazole. Patterns of fungicide use across years may partly reflect the fact that growers are cognizant of the need to rotate AIs to delay the evolution of resistance.

Continued drought kept weed levels low. Possibly as a result, the area treated with herbicides decreased by about 319,000 acres in 2014 (Figure 35). The herbicides applied to the greatest area in wine grape were glyphosate, oxyfluorfen, paraquat dichloride, carfentrazone-ethyl, and glufosinate-ammonium (Figure 36). Except for glufosinate-ammonium, use of all these herbicides decreased in 2014. Glyphosate resistance and a reduced supply of glufosinate-ammonium, due to a high demand in the Midwest and South, as well as globally, explain some of the observed trends in herbicide use over the past few years. Glufosinate-ammonium was more widely available in 2014 due to some new product registrations; its use increased from 28,000 acres to 97,000 acres. It is an attractive alternative to glyphosate. A new AI, indaziflam, registered in 2012, was applied to more than 54,000 acres in 2014. It has strong pre-emergence activity on glyphosate-resistant weeds, and an increase in its use over the next few years is expected. However, it is only approved for use on vines older than 5 years and will likely be used only a couple seasons in a row on the same vineyard due to its long residual activity.

Fumigants were used sparingly in wine grapes in 2014; the most commonly used fumigant was aluminum phosphide, used to control rodents. Its use was predominantly in the Central Coast region.

Gibberellins continue to be by far the most common plant growth regulator (PGR) used in wine grapes, accounting for 93 percent of PGR use in 2014. Gibberellins are applied in early spring in order to lengthen and loosen grape clusters, which reduces vulnerability to berry splitting and bunch rot. Other PGRs that were used on a much smaller scale (235 to 360 acres) were forchlorfenuron, s-abscisic acid, gamma aminobutyric acid, and glutamic acid.


Sources of Information

Adaskaveg, J., D. Gubler and T. Michailides. 2013. Fungicides, bactericides, and biologicals for
deciduous tree fruit, nut, strawberry, and vine crops. UC Davis Dept. of Plant Pathology,
UC Kearney Agricultural Center, UC Statewide IPM Program. 53 pp. http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PDF/PMG/fungicideefficacytiming.pdf

Almond Board of California. http://www.almondboard.com

California Association of Winegrape Growers. 2014. The Crush Newsletter. Vol. 41: issues 1-12. http://www.cawg.org/doc.asp?id=101

California Department of Food and Agriculture -National Agricultural Statistics Service (CDFA). April 2015a. California Grape Acreage Report, 2014 Summary.

California Department of Food and Agriculture -National Agricultural Statistics Service (CDFA).

April 2015b. 2014 California Almond Acreage Report.

California Farm Bureau. 2014. Ag Alert. Various issues. http://www.agalert.com/

California Winegrape Workgroup. 2009. A pest management strategic plan for winegrape
production in California, 95pp.

County Agricultural Commissioners

Fidelibus, M. & S. Vasquez. 2012. Using plant growth regulators to increase the size of table
grape berries. eXtension. http://www.extension.org/pages/31607/using-plant-growthregulators-to-increase-the-size-of-table-grape-berries#.VBn19qHn cs

Growers

Napa Valley Grapegrowers, various reports. http://www.napagrowers.org/

Pest Control Advisors

Private Consultants

Stenersen, J. H. V. 2004. Chemical pesticides: Mode of action and toxicology. CRC Press, London.

Southwick, S. M., and K. Glozer. 2000. Reducing flowering with gibberellins to increase fruit
size in stone fruit trees: Applications and implications in fruit production. HortTechnology 10(4): 744-751. http://horttech.ashspublications.org/content/10/4/744.full.pdf

University of California ANR Field Notes Newsletter. 2014. San Joaquin County.

University of California Cooperative Extension Area IPM Advisors

University of California Cooperative Extension Farm Advisors

University of California. IPM Pest Management Guidelines. Grape.
http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/selectnewpest.grapes.html.

University of California Researchers

United States Department of Agriculture -National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA). 2014.
California Crop Weather. Vol. 34-35 (weekly bulletins).

United States Department of Agriculture -National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA). September 2015. Quick Stats. http://quickstats.nass.usda.gov.

United States Department of Agriculture -National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA). 2014. Weekly Weather and Crop Bulletin. Vol. 101 (weekly bulletins). http://www.usda.gov/oce/weather/pubs/Weekly/Wwcb/index.htm.

Western Farm Press. 2014. Newspaper published two or three times per month. Various issues.


VI. Summary of Pesticide Use Report Data 2014, Indexed by Commodity, PDF (12.3 mb)

The following report presents information of statewide pesticide use for 2014. For each commodity, the chemical that was used, total pounds applied, the number of agricultural applications made, and the amount of commodity treated are summarized.

     Summary of Pesticide Use Report Data 2014, Indexed by Chemical, PDF (10 mb)


Appendix

Figure A-1, PDF: Acres treated by the major AIs from 1994 to 2014.

Figure A-2, PDF: Acres treated by the major AIs and crops in 2014.

Figure A-3, JPG: Number of pesticide application in alfalfa by township in 2014.

Figure A-4, PDF: Acres of alfalfa treated by the major AIs from 1994 to 2014.

Figure A-5, PDF: Acres of alfalfa treated by the major AIs by month and AI type from 2011 to 2014.

Figure A-6, JPG: Number of pesticide application in almond by township in 2014.

Figure A-7, PDF: Acres of almond treated by the major AIs from 1994 to 2014.

Figure A-8, PDF: Acres of almond treated by the major AIs by month and AI type from 2011 to 2014.

Figure A-9, JPG: Number of pesticide application in carrot by township in 2014.

Figure A-10, PDF: Acres of carrot treated by the major AIs from 1994 to 2014.

Figure A-11, PDF: Acres of carrot treated by the major AIs by month and AI type from 2011 to 2014.

Figure A-12, JPG: Number of pesticide application in cotton by township in 2014.

Figure A-13, PDF: Acres of cotton treated by the major AIs from 1994 to 2014.

Figure A-14, PDF: Acres of cotton treated by the major AIs by month and AI type from 2011 to 2014.

Figure A-15, JPG: Number of pesticide application in orange by township in 2014.

Figure A-16, PDF: Acres of orange treated by the major AIs from 1994 to 2014.

Figure A-17, PDF: Acres of orange treated by the major AIs by month and AI type from 2011 to 2014.

Figure A-18, JPG: Number of pesticide application in pistachio by township in 2014.

Figure A-19, PDF: Acres of pistachio treated by the major AIs from 1994 to 2014.

Figure A-20, PDF: Acres of pistachio treated by the major AIs by month and AI type from 2011 to 2014.

Figure A-21, JPG: Number of pesticide application in processing tomato by township in 2014.

Figure A-22, PDF: Acres of processing tomato treated by the major AIs from 1994 to 2014.

Figure A-23, PDF: Acres of processing tomato treated by the major AIs by month and AI type from 2011 to 2014.

Figure A-24, JPG: Number of pesticide application in rice by township in 2014.

Figure A-25, PDF: Acres of rice treated by the major AIs from 1994 to 2014.

Figure A-26, PDF: Acres of rice treated by the major AIs by month and AI type from 2011 to 2014.

Figure A-27, JPG: Number of pesticide application in strawberry by township in 2014.

Figure A-28, PDF: Acres of strawberry treated by the major AIs from 1994 to 2014.

Figure A-29, PDF: Acres of strawberry treated by the major AIs by month and AI type from 2011 to 2014.

Figure A-30, JPG: Number of pesticide application in table and raisin grape by township in 2014.

Figure A-31, PDF: Acres of table and raisin grape treated by the major AIs from 1994 to 2014.

Figure A-32, PDF: Acres of table and raisin grape treated by the major AIs by month and AI type from 2011 to 2014.

Figure A-33, JPG: Number of pesticide application in walnut by township in 2014.

Figure A-34, PDF: Acres of walnut treated by the major AIs from 1994 to 2014.

Figure A-35, PDF: Acres of walnut treated by the major AIs by month and AI type from 2011 to 2014.

Figure A-36, JPG: Number of pesticide application in wine grape by township in 2014.

Figure A-37, PDF: Acres of wine grape treated by the major AIs from 1994 to 2014.

Figure A-38, PDF: Acres of wine grape treated by the major AIs by month and AI type from 2011 to 2014.

The following report presents information of statewide pesticide use for 2013. For each chemical, the commodity on which it was used, total pounds applied, the number of agricultural applications made, and the amount of commodity treated are summarized.